tihvavy  of  trhe  t:heclo0ical  ^eminarjo 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


Donation  of  Samuel  Agnew 
of  Philadelphia 
March  15,    l855 

BX  8931  .H623  18A0 
Hodgson,  Francis,  1805-1877. 
An  examination  of  the  system 
of  new  divinity 


AN  EXAMINATION   I      .  9      :^7t 


SYSTEM    OF   NEW   DIVINITY; 


NEW   SCHOOL   THEOLOGY. 


BY  REV.  FRANCIS  HODGSON, 

OF  THE  NEW-YOKK  CONFERENCE. 


"  It  was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  you,  and  exhort  vou  that  v« 
?h'rsl^tt:ri^4rS^°^  '""^  faith  whik  was  once' dSe'Sl^^ 


NEW-YORK: 

PUBLISHED    BY    GEORGE    LANE, 

FOR  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH.  AT  THE  CONFERENCE  OFFICE, 

200  MTJJLBERRY-STREET. 

J.  Collord,  Printer. 

.1840. 


"  Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1 839, 
by  T.  Mason  and  G.  Lane,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  Dis- 
trict Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New-York." 


PREFACE 

TO 

NEW    DIVINITY. 


To  the  subjects  of  the  following  pages,  the  author  has 
devoted  much  careful  reading  and  patient  investigation. 
Observing,  some  years  since,  that  there  was  an  exciting 
controversy  in  the  leading  Calvinistic  denominations,  he 
was  anxious  to  know  what  doctrinal  changes  were  taking 
place.  It  was  reported  that  some  of  their  eminent  preach- 
ers had  renounced  Calvinism,  and  embraced  Arminianisra. 
Although  he  never  had  any  confidence  in  this  report, 
yet  it  served. to  stimulate  inquiry.  While  eagerly  seek- 
ing for  information,  and  not  knowing  how  to  obtain  it, 
on  account  of  his  remoteness  from  the  scene  of  disputa- 
tion, he  accidentally  met  with  several  numbers  of  the 
Philadelphian,  a  paper  published  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ely. 
They  contained  the  sermon  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  on 
"  The  Way  of  Salvation ;"  the  protest  against  the  leave 
granted  by  the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  to  the  First 
Presbyterian  Church,  to  prosecute  a  call  for  Mr.  B.  to 
become  their  pastor;  Mr.  B.'s  answer  to  the  protest, with 
several  other  articles  on  both  sides  of  the  controversy. 
This  was  a  timely  and  important  acquisition  The  sub- 
ject was  now  fairly  laid  open  to  him — the  mystery  ex- 
plained. From  that  time  he  felt  an  increasing  interest  in 
the  subject,  and  carefully  treasured  up  whatever  informa- 
tion he  received,  respecting  the  doctrines  of  the  New 
School  party. 

Meantime,  public  attention  was  called  to  the  unscriptural 
character  and  dangerous  tendency  of  some  of  the  New 
School  doctrines,  by  correspondents  of  the  Christian  Ad- 
vocate and  Journal.  The  keen  and  well-directed  strictures 
of  a  writer  over  the  signature  of  "  More  Anon,"  in  reply  to 


NEW  DIVINITY PREFACE. 


a  series  of  assaults  on  Methodism,  and  the  very  seasonable 
appearance  of  the  able  articles  on  the  "  Calvinistic  Con- 
troversy," by  the  late  and  lamented  Dr.  Fisk,  served  to 
increase  inquiry,  and  diffuse  information. 

Notwithstanding  what  had  been  written,  it  appeared  that 
something  more  was  needed,  namely,  an  exhibition  of  the 
New  School  doctrines  in  their  relations  as  a  system. 
Many  of  these  doctrines  are  brought  out  prominently,  and 
are  triumphantly  refuted  by  Dr.  Fisk ;  but  his  work  re- 
lates to  the  Calvinistic  controversy  in  general,  rather  than 
to  New  Divinity  as  a  system.  Prompted  by  these  con- 
siderations, a  series  of  numbers  was  commenced,  in  the 
Christian  Advocate  and  Journal.  The  design  was  to  sup- 
ply this  apparent  deficiency — to  present,  without  entering 
largely  into  the  argument,  an  outline  of  this  novel  theology 
as  a  system,  and  especially  to  aid  in  correcting  the  im- 
pression that  it  is  identical  with  Methodism.  It  was 
thought  that  a  few  brief  articles  would  accomplish  this 
purpose,  but  as  the  writer  proceeded,  the  magnitude  of  the 
work  increased.  He  was  apprehensive  that  it  would  be  dif- 
ficult, without  very  strong  proof,  to  convince  many  who  are 
sincere  inquirers,  that  certain  doctrines  are  held  by  those 
to  whom  they  are  imputed.  It  was  also  supposed  that  it 
would  be  unsatisfactory,  if  not  unjust,  to  rely  on  a  single 
passage  to  prove  a  doctrine  held  by  one  individual,  and 
much  more  so,  by  a  large  class  of  theologians.  Hence  he 
was  led,  not  only  to  quote  a  number  of  authors,  but  also  to 
multiply  quotations  from  the  same  authors.  Many  of  the 
quotations  were  found  to  contain  not  only  the  doctrine,  but 
likewise  arguments  in  support  of  it,  so  blended  with  the 
statement  as  to  render  them  inseparable.  This  imposed 
a  necessity  of  going  more  extensively  into  the  argument 
than  was  at  first  designed.  Thus  the  articles  extended  to 
more  than  thirty  in  number,  and  some  of  them  were  quite 
long. 


NEW  DIVINITY PREFACE.  5 

These  numbers  were  not  considerecl  wholly  unsuccess- 
ful, and  the  author  has  been  solicited,  by  private  commuT 
nications,  and  resolutions  of  several  Annual  Conferences(, 
to  publish  them  in  a  volume. 

The  author  finds  it  difficult  to  preclude  the  conviction 
that  the  providence  of  God  has  been  propitious  to  this  un- 
dertaking. Be  this  as  it  may,  he  cannot  but  think  it  re- 
markable that,  while  in  situations  where  the  study  of  this 
controversy  could  have  no  immediate  bearing  on  his 
ministerial  labours,  he  could  not  be  satisfied  to  lay  it  aside. 
It  continued  to  interest  his  feelings  more  and  more  ;  when 
very  unexpectedly,  he  was  removed  to  this  city,  and  placed 
in  stations  which  furnished,  for  the  time,  the  most  favour- 
able situation  for  pursuing  the  inquiry — affording,  among 
other  advantages,  access  to  books  and  periodicals  which 
were  previously  unknown  to  him,  or  beyond  his  reach. 

In  the  course  of  an  extensive,  and  as  careful  a  revision 
as  numerous  and  pressing  duties  would  allow,  considerable 
changes  have  been  made  in  the  arrangement  of  the  topics 
and  arguments.  This  circumatance,  in  addition  to  the 
fact  that  much  new  matter  has  been  added,  has  induced 
the  author  to  name  the  divisions  of  the  book  chapters,  in- 
stead of  numbers. 

While  the  writer  cannot  but  hope  that  the  work  will  be 
of  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  holiness,  he  has  no 
doubt  that  it  contains  imperfections  ;  but  he  trusts  that  the 
importance  of  the  subjects  will  divert  attention  from  what- 
ever defects  may  appear. 

Is  an  apology  deemed  necessary  for  entering  the  arena 
of  religious  controversy  ?  The  writer  is  free  to  confess 
that  he  has  no  ambition  to  be  numbered  among  those 
whose  superabundant  charity  would  suffer  the  truth  to  fall 
in  the  streets,  rather  than  buckle  on  the  harness  in  its  de- 
fence ;  or  with  those  who  profess  a  freedom  from  sectarian- 
ism which  they  fail  to  exemplify. 


6  NEW   DIVINITY PREFACE. 

"With  sincere  prayers  for  the  blessing  of  God  on  his 
labours,  and  on  the  persons  and  interests  of  those  whose 
doctrines  he  has  reviewed,  he  now  commits  this  work  to 
the  public. 

F.  Hodgson. 

New-York,  May  16,  1839. 


Resolutions  of  the  Michigan  Annual  Conference. 

Resolved,  That  we  highly  approve  of  the  articles  on  New  Divinity, 
now  being  published  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  and 
deem  them  well  calculated  to  counteract  the  progress  of  error ;  and 
that  the  author  be  respectfully  requested  to  finish  the  subject  as 
soon  as  possible,  and  to  submit  the  same  for  publication  in  book 
form. 

Resolved,  That  the  Agents  be  respectfully  requested  to  publish, 
in  book  form,  the  articles  on  New  Divinity,  over  the  signature  of 
F.  H.,  in  case  the  author  shall  comply  with  the  above  resolution ; 
believing,  as  we  do,  that  such  a  work  is  very  much  needed,  and 
will,  by  God's  blessing,  prove  an  effectual  antidote  against  a  dan- 
gerous error  prevailing  in  our  country.  , 


Resolution  of  the  Georgia  Annual  Conference. 
Resolved,  That  the  Book  Agents  at  New- York  be  requested  to 
publish  the  pieces  of  F.  H.  in  book  form. 


Resolution  of  the  New-Jersey  Annual  Conference. 

Whereas,  a  correspondent  of  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal, 
tinder  the  signature  of  F.  II.,  has  furnished  a  series  of  numbers  on 
New  Divinity,  in  which,  with  distinguished  ability,  the  errors  of  that 
system  are  exposed  and  refuted ;  and  whereas  we  believe  their  ex. 
tensive  circulation,  in  a  revised  and  durable  form,  will  subserve  the 
mterests  of  truth  : — 

Therefore,  Resolved,  That  this  Conference  respectfully  request 
their  republication  by  our  Book  Agents  at  New-York,  pledging  our 
influence  to  give  the  work  a  widely  extended  circulation. 


NEW   DIVINITY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ABILITY. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  and  written 
on  the  subject  of  New  Divinity  within  the  last  few  years, 
the  question  is  frequently  asked,  and  it  is  one  of  increasing 
interest,  "What  are  the  peculiar  tenets  of  the  New  School 
party  ?"  There  is  considerable  anxiety  to  know  wherein 
they  differ  from  those  which  are  held  by  the  Old  School 
party,  and  also,  wherein  they  differ  from  Methodism. 
(^  Some  are  of  the  opinion,  that  the  difference  between  the 
advocates  of  the  Old  and  New  School  theories  is  trivial — 
that  they  are  engaged  in  a  war  of  words.  Others  suppose 
that  they  are  completely  antipodes  to  each  other  :  that  the 
New  School  theologians  have  wholly  discarded  the  leading 
tenets  of  Calvinism,  as  set  forth  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession of  Faith,^  and  other  creeds  of  kindred  sentiment ; 
and  adopted,  with  very  few  and  almost  unnoticeable  ex- 
ceptions, the  doctrines  of  the  Methodists. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  cause  of  truth  that 
the  latter  impression  be  corrected  and  obviated.  Method- 
ism and  New  School  Calvinism  have  no  affinities  for  each 
other.  There  is,  decidedly,  less  agreement  between  them 
than  there  is  between  Methodism  and  Old  School  Calvin- 
ism ;  and  yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  manner  of 
preaching  of  New  School  divines,  especially  during  times 
of  religious  excitement,  and  where  the  influence  of  Me- 


8  NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY. 

thodism  is  not  inconsiderable,  is    strongly  calculated  to 
originate  and  confirm  that  supposition. 

They  assert,  that  every  man  is  free  to  choose  life  or 
death, — that  all  may  be  saved,  if  they  will, — that  God  sin- 
cerely offers  salvation  to  all  men, — that  all  men  have  an 
ability  to  comply  vrith  the  terms  of  the  gospel, — and  that 
every  man  determines  his  own  final  doom.  These  pro- 
positions are  invested  with  all  the  importance  of  leading 
and  fundamental  doctrines.  They  often  constitute  the  main 
topics  of  sermons,  and  essays,  and  exhortations,  and  are 
maintained  with  elaborate  argument,  and  enforced  by 
powerful  persuasion. 

It  is  not  uncommon  for  these  preachers  to  assail  the 
opposite  notions,  and  belabour  them  without  mercy ;  some- 
times greatly  to  the  offence  of  the  more  orthodox  members 
and  ministers  of  their  own  denomination. 

Whether  they  intend  to  produce  the  belief  that  they 
hold  the  doctrines  of  Methodism,  in  opposition  to  those 
of  Calvinism,  or  not,  it  is  very  extensively  produced.  And 
one  thing  is  certain,  that  very  little  pains,  if  any,  are  taken 
by  them,  to  remove  it  when  it  exists,  or  to  prevent  it  when 
it  is  likely  to  take  place. 

What,  then,  is  the  true  state  of  the  case  ?  It  is  this  : — 
The  New  School  Calvinists  hold  as  tenaciously  as  do 
those  of  the  Old  School,  the  leading  distinctive  tenets  of- 
Calvinism,  as  exhibited  in  its  standards.  That  "  God,  from 
all  eternity,  did,  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass ;"  that  "  by  the  decree  of  God,  for  the 
manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  pre- 
destinated unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to 
everlasting  death;"  that  "these  angels  and  men,  thus  pre- 
destinated and  foreordained,  are  particularly  and  unchange- 
ably designed  ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite 
that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished."     They 


NEW  mvimry — ability.  9 

are  equally  pledged  and  concerned  for  the  maintenance  of 
them  ;  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  they  are  equally 
anxious  for  their  universal  prevalence. 

It  is  true,  they  do  not  usually  assert  these  doctrines  in 
public.  They  do  not  exhibit  them  plainly  and  distinct! velv 
in  their  sermons.  They  are  considered  unprofitable  topics 
for  sermonizing,  and  laid  aside,  under  the  pretext  that 
preaching  should  be  practical  rather  than  doctrinal ;  that 
preachers  should  be  satisfied  with  exhibiting  the  great 
facts  of  Christianity  ;  that  the  world  is  to  be  converted  by 
preaching,  not  sectarian,  but  substantial  Christianity ;  just 
as  if  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  had  revealed  and  at- 
tested great  and  fundamental  doctrines,  which  his  minis- 
ters are  authorized  to  label  with  the  odious  inscription, 
*'  sectarian  Christianity,"  and  keep  out  of  sight  in  their 
preaching,  as  unprofitable  or  pernicious.  They  are  re- 
served to  be  inculcated  in  Bible-classes,  at  the  fire-side, 
and  in  occasional  discourses,  when  it  becomes  necessary 
to  offer  up  a  sacrifice  on  the  altar  of  a  jealous  or  offended 
orthodoxy. 

The  New  School  men,  however,  have  not  been  peculiar 
in  studiously  keeping  those  doctrines  out  of  sight  in  their 
public  ministrations.  This  has,  for  years,  been  the  com- 
mon policy.  They  have  continued  to  constitute  the  basis 
of  the  discourses  delivered  from  Calvinistic  pulpits ;  but 
have  been  so  expressed,  or  implied,  as  generally  to  escape 
the  detection  of  the  inexperienced  observer.  Some  preach- 
ers, of  this  class,  have  succeeded  so  admirably  in  this 
work  of  concealment,  that  many  of  their  hearers,  and  mem- 
bers of  their  churches,  are  offended  and  indignant  when 
it  is  alleged  that  they  hold  Calvinistic  doctrines. 

The  peculiarities  of  New  School  Calvinism,  then,  are 
not  to  be  found  in  a  denial  of  those  articles  by  which  the 
creeds  of  the  Calvinistic  churches  are  distinguished,  and 
an  adoption  of  the  tenets  of  Methodism,  but  in  one  of  the 

!• 


10  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

metaphysical  theories,  by  which  it  is  attempted  to  recon- 
cile the  well-known  doctrines  of  Calvinism  with  the  offers 
of  a  free  salvation,  and  the  obligation  of  all  men  to  repent 
and  believe  the  gospel.  It  has  been  extensively  dis- 
covered, that  the  doctrines  of  a  free  salvation  are  the  only 
doctrines  which  secure  revivals  of  religion.  Calvinistic 
theologians  have  found,  that  while  they  were  engaged  in 
opposing  these  doctrines,  as  preached  by  the  Methodists 
and  others,  as  anti-scriptural,  tending  to  universalism  and 
infidelity,  and  entirely  subversive  of  the  doctrines  of  grace 
and  the  plan  of  salvation,  God  was  rendering  the  doctrines 
which  they  opposed  instrumental  in  the  conversion  of 
many  souls,  and,  in  some  instances,  of  almost  whole  neigh- 
bourhoods. They  likewise  discovered  a  desperate  revolt- 
ing of  the  public  mind  against  the  exclusive  doctrines 
which  they  attempted  to  force  on  its  acceptance.  This 
attitude  of  revolt,  notwithstanding  they  very  self-compla- 
cently  attributed  it  to  the  opposition  of  unregenerate  na 
ture  to  the  truth,  they  found  very  difficult  to  withstand ; 
and  the  only  alternative  that  presented  itself  was  that  of 
adopting  and  preaching  the  doctrines  of  a  free  salvation. 
This  must  be  done,  or  infidelity  and  irreligion  on  the  one 
hand,  or  an  equally  abhorred  Arminianism,  alias  Method- 
ism, on  the  other,  will  take  the  field. 

But  here  arises  a  difficulty  of  no  small  magnitude. 
The  doctrines  that  salvation  is  free  for  all ;  that  it  is  sin- 
cerely offered  to  all ;  and  that  all  may  accept  it ;  are  directly 
and  obviously  at  war  with  the  doctrines  that  "  by  the 
decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some 
men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life, 
and  others  foreordained  to  everlasting  death ;"  "  that  these 
angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  foreordained,  are 
particularly  and  imchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  num- 
ber is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  in- 
creased or  diminished  ;"  "  that  the  elect,  and  none  other, 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  11 

are  redeemed  by  Christ."  They  have  occupied  the  field 
against  each  other  in  determined  and  protracted  hostility. 
The  latter  doctrines  these  divines  were  not  prepared  to 
surrender.  They  firmly  believed  them,  and  were  pledged 
to  their  support. 

What,  then,  is  to  be  done  1  An  attempt  must  be  made  to 
reduce  these  conflicting  propositions  to  an  agreement.  The 
doctrines  of  a  free  salvation  must  be  preached,  and  yet  the 
opposite  doctrines  must  be  retained,  and  must  constitute 
the  standard  of  orthodoxy.  Hence  some  ground  must  be 
sought  out  on  which  they  can  be  united.  How  shall  this 
be  accomplished  ?  This  has  been  styled  by  the  late  Rev. 
Robert  Hall,  "The  great  question."  Its  solution  has  been 
attempted,  and  to  this  attempt  we  are  indebted  for  the 
theory  which  constitutes  New  School  Calvinism. 

This  theory  has  its  commencement  in  certain  definitions 
and  distinctions  on  the  subject  of  ability/.  The  reason  of 
these  definitions  and  distinctions  is  as  follows  : — If  men 
have  not  power  to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  it  is  use- 
less to  offer  salvation  to  them,  or  to  enjoin  on  them  re- 
pentance and  faith ;  and  sinners  are  in  possession  of  a 
A'alid  and  unanswerable  excuse  for  living  in  impenitence 
and  unbelief.  It  must,  therefore,  be  allowed,  that  all  men 
have  ability  to  perform  these  exercises  and  accept  salva- 
tion. But,  if  this  be  gTanted  without  some  qualification, 
what  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  the  eternal  and  unchange- 
able foreordination  of  every  event  that  comes  to  pass  1 
Will  it  not  plainly  follow,  that  men  have  power  to  act 
otherwise  than  as  God  ordained  from  all  eternity,  and  that 
doctrine  be  endangered  or  exploded  ?  What  will  become 
of  the  doctrine  that  God  has  elected  a  certain  number  of 
angels  and  of  men  to  eternal  life,  and  that  the  number  is 
so  definite  that  it  cannot  be  added  to  ©r  diminished?  Will 
it  not  follow  that  the  non-elect  may  accept  the  offer  of  sal- 
vation, and  be  saved,  in  despite  of  tiieir  non-election,  and 


12  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

thus  frustrate  the  immutable  decrees  of  sovereign  and  dis- 
tinguishing grace  and  wrath  ? 

The  speculations  to  which  we  have  referred  are  de- 
signed to  meet  and  obviate  this  difficulty.  It  is  concluded 
that  all  men  must  be  supposed  to  have  ability,  in  some 
sense,  to  perform  what  is  required  of  them  in  order  to  sal- 
vation. And  yet,  there  must  be  some  insuperable  diffi- 
culty in  the  way  of  the  reprobate  portion  of  mankind.  We 
are,  therefore,  notified,  that  all  men  have  a  natural,  or 
physical  ability,  but  the  possession  of  this  is  supposed  to 
be  compatible  with  the  absence  of  another  kind  of  ability, 
which  is  equally. indispensable.  The  distinction  of  ability 
into  natural  and  moral  is  resorted  to,  and  we  are  told,  that 
all  have  the  natural,  but  all  have  not  the  moral  ability. 
Or,  if  the  term,  "  moral  ability"  be  rejected,  as  it  is  by 
some,  there  is  supposed  to  be  a  disinclination,  which  no- 
thing but  the  special  grace  of  God  ever  did,  or  ever  can 
overcome.  On  the  ground  of  natural  ability,  they  offer 
salvation  to  all ;  urge  on  all  the  obligation  to  repent  and  be- 
Keve  the  gospel ;  and  vindicate  the  justice  of  the  divine  go- 
vernment in  the  condemnation  and  everlasting  punishment 
of  the  impenitent.  On  the  gromid  of  the  moral  inability, 
or  the  disinclination  which  none  ever  did,  or  can  over- 
come, Avithout  special  grace,  they  erect  the  entire  struc- 
ture of  rigid,  old-fashioned  Calvinism.  No  man  has  the 
indispensable  moral  ability,  or  the  will,  to  repent  and  be- 
lieve, unless  God  gives  it  to  him,  and  he  gives  it  to  whom 
he  pleases  :  he  gives  it  to  none  but  those  who  were  elected 
to  salvation  from  all  eternitj-.  This  doctrine  may  not  al- 
ways be  brought  out  prominently  in  their  discourses  on 
human  ability.  It  is  often  placed  as  a  sentinel  to  guard 
the  doctrines  of  grace  from  violation,  wliile  the  doctrine  of 
natural  ability  is  mainly  insisted  upon. 

Some  of  the  advocates  of  the  New  Divinity  have  like- 
wise, for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  a  free  salvation  with 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITV.  13 

Calvinism,  a  distinction  on  the  subject  of  atonement.  It 
is  perceived,  at  a  single  glance,  that  if  the  atonement  be 
limited — if  Christ  did  not  die  for  all — it  is  absolutely  im- 
possible that  all  should  be  saved  ;  and  therefore  it  is  use- 
less to  offer  salvation  to  all.  On  the  other  hand,  if  Christ 
died  for  all  without  any  reserve  or  qualification,  their  doc- 
trine of  election  is  exploded.  A  distinction  is  therefore 
made  between  the  atonement  and  the  application  of  it — 
between  atonement  and  redemption. 

The  atonement,  it  is  said,  was  made  for  all,  and  is 
equally  applicable  to  all,  but  its  actual  application,  which 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,  is  restricted,  by  an 
eternal  decree,  to  the  elect.  They  alone  are  the  objects 
of  redemption. 

The  bearing  of  this  distinction  is  readily  perceived. 
Put  the  natural  ability  and  the  general  atonement  toge- 
ther, and  you  have  the  ground  of  their  offers  of  salvation 
to  all,  and  appeals  to  the  consciences  of  sinners.  Stand- 
ing on  this  ground,  they  can  preach  as  though  they  had 
verily  renounced  Calvinism ;  and  many  of  their  hearers 
may  go  away,  gravely  and  earnestly  affirming  that  there 
is  not  the  least  difference  between  their  preaching  and 
that  of  the  Methodists  ;  and  yet  they  are  decided  Calvin- 
ists,  and  view  the  doctrines  of  Methodism  with  abhorrence. 
They  secure  their  Calvinism  by  the  doctrines  of  moral 
inability,  and  a  limited  application  of  the  atonement,  or  a 
limited  redemption. 

Whether  this  distinction  is  held  by  all  who  are  classed 
with  the  New  School  party  or  not,  the  writer  is  uncertain. 
It  is  not  held  by  all  who  hold  the  distinction  on  ability. 
The  Rev.  Dr.  Ely,  for  instance,  is  a  warm  advocate  for  the 
doctrines  of  natural  ability  and  moral  inability  ;  and  yet  he 
holds  the  doctrine  of  limited  atonement,  as  will  appear  by 
a  reference  to  the  files  of  the  Philadelphian.  How  he 
reconciles  the  doctrine,  that  all  may  be  saved  if  they  will, 


14  NEW  DIVINITY — -ABILITY. 

with  the  doctrine  that  Christ  did  not  die  for  all,  is  a  some- 
what puzzling  question. 

Perhaps  he  thinks  that  if  any  one  for  whom  Christ  has 
not  died  has  a  disposition  to  be  saved,  Christ  will  yet  die 
for  him!  Or,  perhaps,  this  subject  is  too  profound  for 
Methodist  preachers,  every  one  of  whom,  he  some  time 
since  affirmed,  preaches  all  he  knows  to  his  congregation 
twice  every  two  years. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ABILITY    CONTINUED. 

Having,  in  the  preceding  chapter,  referred  the  New 
School  theory  to  its  source,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  de- 
velope  it  more  fully,  and  attempt  its  refutation. 

The  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability  of  fallen  and  de 
praved  man,  to  do  Avhatever  is  required  of  him  by  the 
'divine  government,  leads,  by  a  course  of  easy  and  obvious 
inference,  to  the  doctrines,  that  all  depravity  is  in  the  will; 
that  depravity  and  holiness  consist  solely  in  voluntary  ac- 
tion ;  that  infants  have  no  moral  character ;  that  regene- 
ration consists  in  a  voluntary  change  of  purpose  ;  that  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  regenerating  a  sinner,  operates  by  "  moral 
suasion"  merely;  that  the  first  movement  of  a  sinner 
toward  God — the  very  first  obedient  act — constitutes  sub- 
mission, or  regeneration  ;  that  the  sinner  converts  himself, 
or  changes  his  own  heart ;  that  for  a  sinner  to  pray  to 
God  before  submission,  or  regeneration,  is  not  only 
useless  but  rebellious,  and  adds  to  his  condemnation ; 
that  the  sinner  has  no  right  to  use  any  of  the  means  of 
grace,  as  conducing  to  his  salvation  ;  that  painful  convic- 
tions for  sin,  and  anxiety  for  the  favour  of  God,  are  not 
only  unnecessary,  but  wholly  indicative  of  rebellion,  and 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  15 

render  the  condition  of  those  who  are  so  exercised  worse 
than  before  ;  and  that  the  comdcted  sinner  is  entitled  to 
no  sympathy,  on  account  of  his  distress  of  mind,  inas- 
much as  he  can  terminate  it,  by  submission,  whenever  he 
pleases. 

These  consequences,  and  others  which  may  hereafter 
be  brought  to  light,  have  been  acknowledged  and  adopted, 
and  form  so  many  articles  in  the  creed  of  the  thoroughly 
indoctrinated  New  School  Calvinist.  We  shall  defer  the 
task  of  proving  that  these  consequences  are  held  as  doc- 
trines, by  those  to  whom  we  ascribe  them,  and  of  tracing 
their  logical  connection,  imtil  we  come  to  take  them  up 
separately  for  refutation.  Our  first  effort  will  be  directed 
to  the  investigation  of  those  views  of  ability  on  which  the 
fabric  is  based. 

As  the  scheme  of  New  Divinity  is  grossly  contradictory 
in  itself,  and  the  manner  in  which  its  advocates  sometimes 
assert  the  doctrine  of  the  sinner's  dependance  on  spiritual 
influence  leads  many  to  suppose  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
natural  ability  to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel  is  not  only 
not  held,  but  positively  denied,  it  may  not  be  unimportant 
to  prepare  our  way  by  adducing  a  few  examples,  in  con- 
firmation of  what  we  have  asserted  on  this  subject. 

The  Rev.  George  Duffield,  who  occupies  a  prominent 
position  in  the  ranks  of  New  Divinity,  having  written  a 
considerable  volume  in  exposition  and  support  of  its  prin- 
ciples, distinctly  avows  the  doctrine  under  consideration. 
"  That  men  are  destitute  of  the  natural  ahility,  that  is,  the 
constitutional  capacities  requisite  to  believe  and  repent, 
&c.,  none  will  explicitly  aflirm." — Duffield  on  Regenera- 
tion, p.  317. 

Again  : — "  Not  much  less  deluding  are  the  system  and 
tactics  of  those  who,  fearing  to  invade  the  province  of  the 
Spirit,  are  careful  to  remind  the  sinner,  at  every  turn,  that 
he  is  utterly  unable,  by  his  own  unassisted  powers,  either 


16  NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY. 

to  believe  or  repent  to  the  saving  of  his  soul.  It  might  as 
truly  be  said,  that  he  cannot  rise  and  walk  by  his  own  un- 
assisted powers,  &;c." — Ibid.,  542. 

It  is  thus  asserted  by  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  his  Sermon  on  "  The  Way  of  Salvation  :" — 
"  In  the  representation  of  this  scheme,  I  proceed  to  re- 
mark, in  the  third  place,  that  while  God  thus  sincerely 
offers  the  gospel  to  men,  all  mankind,  while  left  to  them- 
selves, as  sincerely  and  cordially  reject  it.  It  is  not  to 
any  want  of  physical  strength,  that  this  rejection  is  owing; 
for  men  have  power  enough  in  themselves  to  hate  both 
God  and  their  fqllow-men ;  and  it  requires  less  physical 
\  power  to  love  God  than  to  hate  him." — Barnes^  Defence,  p.  24. 
'  In  a  note  to  the  preceding  passage,  he  remarks,  "  The 
distinction,  then,  between  natural  and  moral  ability  referred 
to  here  is  not  one  of  mere  speculation.  It  enters  into  all 
preaching ;  and  this  single  distinction  will  give  a  com- 
plexion to  all  a  man's  theology,  and  to  all  his  efforts  to 
save  men." 

'  A  comparison  of  these  passages  will  show  that  he  uses 
the  terms  physical  and  natural  as  synonymous,  in  this  ap- 
plication of  them,  and  that  he  means  by  natural,  or  physi- 
cal ability,  that  "  men  have  power  enough  in  themselves" 
to  love  God.  Indeed  we  are  told  that  it  is  more  difficult 
to  hate  God  than  to  love  him. 
/     The  Rev.  Dr.  Beecher,  after  quoting  a  number  of  au- 

(thorities  in  support  of  his  opinion,  says,  "  I  now  add  : — 
That  the  Bible  teaches  the  free  agency  and  natural  ability 
of  man  to  obey  or  disobey. 
And  on  page  eighty-four  he  remarks,  "  On  this  argument 
we  observe  : — That  these  implications  of  the  Bible  do 
clearly,  and  in  the  strongest  possible  manner,  treat  the 
doctrine  of  man's  free  agency  and  Jiatural  ability  to  obey 
or  disobey  the  gospel,  as  the  foundation  of  his  obligation." 
It  is  thus  avowed  by  the  Rev.  Charles  G.  Finney : — 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  17 

«<  In  the  light  of  this  subject,  you  can  see  the  nature  and 
degree  of  the  sinner's  dependance  on  the  Spirit  of  God. 
The  Spirit's  agency  is  not  needed  to  give  him  power,  but 
to  overcome  his  voluntary  obstinacy.  Some  persons  seem 
to  suppose  that  the  Spirit  is  employed  to  give  the  sinner 
power — that  he  is  unable  to  obey  God  without  the  Spirit's 
agency.  I  am  alarmed  when  I  hear  such  declarations  as 
these ;  and  were  it  not  that  I  suppose  there  is  a  sense  in 
which  a  man's  heart  may  be  better  than  his  head,  I  should 
feel  boimd  to  maintain,  that  persons  holding  this  sentiment 
were  not  Christians  at  all." — Sermons,  p.  24. 

The  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator,  formerly  published 
at  New-Haven,  but  recently  merged  in  the  American  Bib- 
lical Repository,  published  in  New-York,  speaks  out  ex- 
plicitly on  this  subject ;  and  as  this  has  been  the  leading 
periodical  in  the  interests  of  New  Divinity,  the  reader  will 
pardon  us  if  we  make  one  or  two  extensive  quotations  from 
its  pages.  In  an  extract  from  a  work  entitled  "  Edson's 
Letters  to  the  Conscience,"  which  is  reviewed  with  ap- 
probation, especially  that  part  to  which  our  attention  is 
now  called,  we  have  the  following  sentiments : — 

"  But  it  is  asked,  can  a  sinner  repent  without  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit  1 

"  I  reply,  in  answer,  that  the  Spirit  is  not  necessary  to 
give  power  or  capacity  to  repent ;  but  to  make  the  sinner 
willing  to  repent, — ^willing  to  use  the  power  he  has  to  be 
sorry,  in  actually  being  sorry.  Here,  you  perceive,  that 
the  only  difficulty  in  the  way  is  obstinacy, — the  sinner  will 
not  yield  to  God  ;  will  not  come  to  Christ  for  life.  This 
is  the  whole  difficidty.  -  It  is  of  precisely  the  same  na- 
ture with  that  of  the  stubborn  child,  who  will  not  be  sorry 
for  having  voluntarily  and  wilfully  disobeyed  his  parent. 
And  it  may  be  that  he  will  continue  to  stand  out,  until  the 
parent  takes  some  effectual  measure  to  subdue  his  obsti- 
nacy.    But  still,  this  does  not  prove  that  he  could  not  have 


18  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

yielded  before.  No  new  power  was  needed,  which  he  did 
not  before  possess.  And  the  fact  that  the  sinner  never 
will  yield  to  God,  and  repent  of  sin,  without  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  docs  not  touch  the  question  in  regard 
to  capacity  or  power." — Vol.  vii,  No.  4,  p.  635. 

This  subject  is  brought  up  in  a  review  of  "  Sprague  on 
Revivals."  In  this  article,  as  in  several  others  to  which 
we  might  refer,  not  only  is  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability 
affirmed,  but  its  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  Methodism, 
on  this  subject,  is  distinctly  recognised : — 

"  That  God  should  command  what  man  has  no  power 
to  perform  is  irreconcilable  with  all  our  conceptions  of 
the  divine  character.  Ability  to  do  his  duty  he  must  pos- 
sess, either  in  himself  considered,  as  a  moral  agent,  or  in 
the  promised  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  raising  his 
'lapsed  powers'  to  a  capacity  for  obedience.  The  former 
of  these  suppositions  is  New-England  Calvinism,  the  latter 
is  evangelical  Arminianism.  We  need  not  say  to  which 
,  party  Dr.  Sprague  belongs.  In  common  with  his  New- 
England  brethren,  he  describes  the  whole  difficult}'  of  the 
sinner  as  consisting  in  a  '  settled  aversion'  to  his  duty. 
But  an  aversion,  we  all  know,  implies  no  real  inability, 
and  receives  the  name  only  in  a  figurative  sense  to  de- 
scribe its  strength  and  permanence." — Vol.  v,  No.  l,p.  37. 

Here  we  have  two  theories  presented.  One  is,  that 
man  possesses  ability  to  do  his  duty,  in  himself,  as  a  moral 
agent ;  the  other,  that  he  has  the  ability,  not  in  himself, 
however,  but  in  the  promised  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
raising  his  '  lapsed  powers.'  The  former  is  claimed  as 
New-England  Calvinism.  The  latter  is  rejected  as  evan- 
gelical Arminianism. 

There  is  a  similar  passage,  but  more  full  and  copious, 
on  page  39,  in  which  reference  is  made  to  some  doctrinal 
statements  of  Dr.  Griffin,  which  are  considered  excep- 
tionable. 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  19 

"  This  statement  of  Dr.  Griffin  is  followed  by  another, 
which  brings  him,  as  far  as  we  can  see,  directly  on  the 
ground  of  evangelical  Arminianism.  '  They  (sinners)  are 
bound  to  go  forth  to  their  work  at  once,  but  they  are  not 
hound  to  go  alone :  it  is  their  duty  to  cast  themselves  in- 
stantly on  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  take  a  single  step  in 
their  own  strength. — App.  p.  161.  Now  it  is  not  possi- 
ble, we  apprehend,  to  invent  a  statement  more  directly 
contradictory  than  this,  to  the  fundamental  principle  of 
New-England  Calvinism.  That  principle  is,  that  man  is, 
in  himself,  a  free  agent,  and  not  made  such  by  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit :  that  he  is  bound,  as  a  free  agent,  to  '  go 
forth  at  once  to  the  work'  of  obeying  God,  in  the  exercise 
of  power  conferred  in  creation,  and  not  superinduced  by 
grace,  that  is,  to  go  '  ALONE  :'  that  as  a  complete  moral 
agent  in  /jtwi^e^  considered,  he  is  bound  to  obey  God  in 
his  '  own  strength^  this  being  made  in  the  law  the  very 
measure  of  his  obedience :  that  there  is  no  promise,  grant, 
or  '  privilege'  belonging  to  the  unconverted,  and  no  '  duty' 
which  they  can  perform  short  of  giving  their  hearts  to 
God ;  and,  therefore,  that  it  is  not,  as  Arminians  teach, 
'  their  privilege  and  duty  to  cast  themselves  on  the  Holy 
Ghost'  to  be  made  holy,  but  to  become  holy  at  once,  by  the 
exercise  of  repentance  and  faith  in  Christ.  These,  un- 
deniably, are  the  views  of  all  New-England  Calvinists,  in 
opposition  to  the  scheme  of  Evangelical  Arminians." 

This  passage  needs  no  comment.  It  asserts  strongly 
that  man  is  able,  and  bound,  to  do  what  is  required  of  him, 
without  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  it  as  strongly 
contradicts  the  opposite  opinion. 

We  beg  leave  to  present  another  quotation  to  show  how 
this  subject  is  viewed  by  the  New  School  Calvinists  in 
England.  It  is  from  the  pen  of  John  Howard  Hinton, 
A.  M.,  an  eminent  writer  among  the  Baptists,  and  con- 
tained in  a  treatise  on  "  The  Work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 


20  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

Conversion.'*  After  arguing,  at  some  length,  the  question 
of  the  sinner's  ability,  he  announces,  in  italics,  the  following 
conclusion :  "  The  means  of  repentance,  therefore,  and  all 
the  means  of  repentance,  are  possessed  by  a  sinner  without 
the  Spirit ;  but  the  possession  of  the  means  of  repentance 
constitutes  the  potoer  of  repentance ;  therefore,  a  sinner  has 
power  to  repent  without  the  Spirit." — Page  126. 

Were  we  to  adduce  all  the  testimonies  on  this  point  that 
are  within  our  reach,  they  would  fill  a  volume ;  but  the 
foregoing  are  sufficient. 

It  is  not  designed  to  make  the  impression  that  the  New 
School  party  ar6  alone  in  asserting,  and  maintaining,  this 
doctrine  of  natural  ability.  It  was  maintained  by  the  dis- 
tinguished President  Eidwards,  who  is  almost  canonized 
as  a  theologian,  by  the  Old  School  party,  and  also  by  Owen, 
Witherspoon,  and  others,  who  are  counted  among  the 
princes  of  Old  School  theology.  These  men,  in  the  emer- 
gencies to  which  the  arguments  of  Arminianism  subjected 
them,  sowed  the  wind  of  doctrine  from  which  the  whirl- 
wind has  grown,  that  now  shakes  and  rends  the  Calvin- 
istic  churches. 

The  question  now  in  dispute  is  one  which  must  be 
settled  by  the  authority  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  to  their 
arbitration  every  Christian  controversialist  will  cheerfully 
appeal  and  submit.  If  they  give  their  sanction  to  the  theory 
we  oppose,  we  shall  feel  bound  to  forego  our  opposition. 
We  turn,  therefore,  "  to  the  law  and  the  testimony."  Do 
they  teach  that  the  sinner  has  the  ability,  naturally  and 
independently  of  grace,  to  perform,  at  any  moment,  those 
acts  of  holiness  which  are  necessary  to  salvation,  and  that 
all  he  wants  is  the  will  to  do  so  ?  Just  the  contrary.  The 
Apostle  Paul  says,  "  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against 
God,  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed 
can  be,"  Rom.  viii,  7.  It  is  here  plainly  affirmed  of  the 
carnal  mind,  that  it  cannot  obey  the  law  of  God.    The  ad- 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  21 

vocates  of  New  Divinity,  however,  profess  to  consider  this 
passage  in  favour  of  their  theory  rather  than  against  it. 
Mr.  Duffield  tells  us  that  "  when  Paul  says  of  the  '  carnal 
mind,'  that  it  '  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be,'  he  is  not  speaking  of  the  essential  mind, 
but  that  mind's  exercises,  as  any  Greek  scholar  will  at 
once  perceive  :  so  that,  instead  of  furnishing  an  objection, 
this  passage  is  a  strong  confirmation  of  that  for  which  we 
contend."  And  suppose  we  admit  that  he  is  spealdng  of 
the  "  mind's  exercises,"  and  not  the  "  essential  mind  ;"  is 
there  no  contradiction  between  the  doctrine,  that  the  sin- 
ner has  a  natural  ability  to  subject  the  exercises  of  his 
mind  to  the  law  of  God,  and  the  apostle's  declaration,  first 
of  the  fact,  that  the  exercises  of  his  mind  "  are  not  subject 
to  th«  law  of  God,"  and,  secondly,  that  they  cannot  be 
subject  to  it  ?  "What  is  to  hinder  their  subjection  to  the 
law  of  God,  if  the  "  essential  mind"  can  subject  them  to 
it  at  pleasure  ?  Is  the  apostle's  declaration,  that  the  "ex- 
ercises" of  the  sinner's  mind  are  not  subject  to  the  law  of 
God,  and  cannot  be  subject  to  it,  a  "  strong  confirmation" 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  sinner's  natural  ability  to  subject 
them  to  the  law  whenever  he  will  ?  Then,  verily,  the  laws 
of  evidence  must  have  undergone  some  great  change,  or 
Mr.  Duffield  is  not  very  scrupidous  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  on  which  he  relies. 

But  whether  the  apostle  affirms  that  the  "  essential 
mind"  is  carnal,  and  at  enmity  with  God,  or  not,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  infer  that  this  is  the  case,  from  what  Mr.  Duf- 
field supposes  him  to  affirm.  These  carnal  exercises  are 
put  forth  by  the  "  essential  mind."  They  are  exercises 
of  the  mind.  But  if  all  the  exercises  of  the  "  essential 
mind"  are  carnal,  and  enmity  against  God,  what  shall  we 
say  of  the  mind  which  puts  forth  these  exercises  ?  Is  it 
not  carnal  ?  To  assert  that  all  the  exercises  of  the  essen- 
tial mind  are  carnal,  and  enmity  against  God,  and  yet  that 


22  NEW  DIVINITY— ABILITY. 

the  mind  itself  is  not  carnal,  would  be  just  as  consistent 
as  to  assert,  that  a  man  may  invariably  perform  wicked 
actions,  and  not  be  a  wicked  man.  According  to  this 
mode  of  interpretation,  when  the  apostle  charges  some 
with  being  enemies  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  we  are  not  to 
understand  him,  that  the  individuals  themselves — the  "es- 
sential" men  and  women,  are  the  enemies  in  question,  but 
merely  that  their  actions  are  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ. 
Now,  it  is  of  that  which  is  carnal  that  the  apostle  predi- 
cates, that  it  "  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be." 

Equally  adverse  to  the  tenet  we  oppose,  is  the  declara- 
tion of  the  apostle,  "  The  natural  man  discemeth  not  the 
things  of  the  spirit  of  God ;  neither  can  he  know  them,  be- 
cause they  are  spiritually  discerned,"  1  Cor.  ii,  14.  The 
doctrine  of  this  text  is,  that  there  are  spiritual  things,  with 
respect  to  which  the  natural  man  is  so  situated,  that  while 
he  remains  in  that  condition,  he  neither  discerns  them, 
nor  can  discern  them.  To  be  able  to  discern  them,  he 
must  undergo  a  great  change.  He  must  become  a  spirit- 
ual man. 

Similar  is  the  eftect  of  these  words  of  our  Lord,  "  How 
can  ye  believe,  which  receive  honour  one  of  another,  and 
seek  not  the  honour  which  cometh  from  God  only,"  John 
V,  44.  The  state  of  mind,  in  which  the  honour  which  com- 
eth of  men  is  preferred  to  the  honour  which  cometh  from 
God,  is  represented  as  rendering  its  possessors  imable  to 
exercise  the  faith  that  is  required  of  them. 

An  attempt  is  made  to  dispose  of  many  of  those  pas- 
sages in  which  the  inability  of  the  sinner  is  asserted,  by 
affirming  that  the  terms  can,  and  cannot,  do  not  always 
imply  ability,  and  inability,  but  often  disinclination,  or  want 
of  will,  merely.  That  these  terms  are  frequently  used 
figuratively,  to  signify  inconvenience,  or  strong  disinclina- 
tion, and  their  correlatives,  is  imdeniable.    But  in  their 


NEW  DIVmiTY— ABILITY.  23 

literal  and  proper  application,  they  invariably  express  the 
idea  of  power.  How  is  the  idea  of  inability  to  be  more 
strongly  expressed  than  by  the  following  passages : — "  Can 
we  go  on  hot  coals  and  not  be  burnt  ?"  Prov.  vi,  28.  "  Can 
any  hide  himself  in  secret  places  that  I  shall  not  see  him, 
saith  the  Lord,"  Jer.  xxiii,  24.  "  Can  the  fig-tree,  my 
brethren,  bear  olive-berries  ?  either  a  vine,  figs  ?  So  can 
no  fountain  both  yield  salt  water  and  fresh,"  James  iii,  12. 
To  infer  that  this  language  does  not  import  inability,  when 
appHed  to  other  subjects,  merely  because  the  term  can, 
and  its  correlative,  are  sometimes  used  figuratively  to  sig- 
nify something  else  than  ability  and  inability,  is  to  reason 
-  as  soundly  as  the  Universalist  does,  when  he  contends  that 
the  term  "hell"  does  not  represent  a  place  of  future  and 
eternal  pimishment,  because  it  is  also  used  to  signify  the 
grave,  or  the  place  of  departed  spirits.  And  yet  our  op- 
ponents seem  to  think  that  they  have  fairly  disposed  of 
these  texts,  by  saying  that  the  terms  under  consideration 
do  not  always  convey  the  idea  of  power.  But  who  needs 
that  information  ?  Let  them  prove  that  these  terms,  in  the 
texts  we  have  adduced,  or  may  adduce,  are  intended  to 
express  willingness  or  unwillingness  merely,  and  we  will 
give  them  up.  Nor  will  it  answer  for  them  to  interpret  the 
texts  by  their  theory— to  say  that  they  cannot  mean  ina- 
bihty  because  it  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  things ;  for  that 
is  the  very  point  in  dispute.  Whether  their  views  of  the 
nature  of  things  are  correct,  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  and  will  depend  on  their  agreement 
with  its  dictates.  And  when  they  choose  to  affirm  that 
man  has  a  natural  ability  to  do  that  which  the  Scriptirres 
as  plainly  affirm  he  cannot  do,  whose  authority,  as  to  the 
nature  of  things,  is  to  be  decisive  ? 

We  do  not  rely  on  these  Scripture  testimonies,  as  co- 
vering the  whole  ground  in  dispute.  They  directly  con- 
tradict the  doctrine,  that  the  sinner  has  a  natural  ability, 


24  NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY. 

at  any  moment,  to  do  whatever  may  be  required  of  him  in 
order  to  salvation.  They  instruct  us  that  the  performance 
of  many  of  these  things  requires  a  state  of  mind  directly 
opposite  to  that  by  which  he  is  characterized ;  so  that, 
while  he  remains  in  his  present  state  of  mind,  he  can  no 
more  perform  the  exercises  of  holiness  than  he  can  see 
from  the  depths  of  the  valley  the  objects  that  can  be  seen 
only  from  the  summit  of  the  mountain.  But  then,  we 
readily  admit  that  they  determine  nothing  as  to  his  ability 
to  bring  about  a  change  in  the  state  of  his  mind.  If  it  be 
affirmed  that  he  has  a  natural  ability  to  enter  upon,  and 
go  through  with,  that  process  which  will  bring  him  into 
another  state  of  mind,  and  to  uphold  himself  in  that  con- 
dition, we  do  not  depend  on  these  texts  to  prove  the  con- 
trary. 

The  Scriptures,  however,  do  not  desert  us  at  this  inte- 
resting point  in  our  inquiries.  They  furnish  the  most 
explicit  avowals  on  the  subject.  Our  Saviour  spoke  de- 
cisively when  he  said,  "  No  man  can  come  unto  me,  except 
the  Father,  which  hath  sent  me,  draw  him,"  John  vi,  44. 
There  can  be  no  question  as  to  what  is  meant  by  coming 
to  Christ.  For  the  power  to  do  this,  we  are  declared  to  be 
dependant  on  divine  influence.  Mr.  Barnes  endeavours 
to  shield  his  theory  from  the  stroke  which  this  passage 
inflicts,  by  the  old  standing  contrivance  of  insisting  that 
the  phraseology  employed  does  not  always  signify  inability. 
He  tells  us  that  the  Saviour  did  not  intend  to  assert  any 
thing  as  to  the  ability  of  the  sinner,  but  merely  that,  as  a 
historical  fact,  "  No  man  ever  did  or  will  repent,  except  as 
influenced  by  the  Spirit." — Defence,  p.  158.  But  where 
is  the  proof  of  this  ?  The  interpretation  of  Mr.  Barnes  is 
perfectly  gratuitous.  It  is  suggested  solely  by  his  theory. 
The  inability  of  the  sinner  to  come  to  Christ,  without  aid, 
could  not  be  more  strongly  affirmed. 

Mr.  Hinton  endeavours  to  evade  the  force  of  this  text  by 


NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY.  25 

Commenting  on  the  word  "  draAV."  "  Draioing,^^  he  says, 
"  is  a  process  not  any  way  adapted  to  the  need  of  a  man 
who  has  no  power  ;  it  pertains  rather  to  one  who  wants  in- 
clination."— Page  226.  We  are  at  a  loss  to  determine 
what  idea  Mr.  Hinton  attaches  to  the  term  "  draw."  To 
our  mind  it  does  not  determine  specifically  the  mode  of  the 
influence  used  which  is  exerted.  Besides,  it  is  not  used 
with  reference  to  one  who  has  "  no  power"  but  who  has 
not  power  to  come  to  Christ.  Because  a  man  cannot  do 
every  thing,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  cannot  do  any  thing. 
And  since  the  Saviour  has  plainly  assured  us  of  the  ina- 
bility of  the  sinner  to  come  to  him,  without  the  Spirit's 
influence,  we  care  not  to  dispute  about  the  propriety  of 
the  term  he  has  selected  to  represent  the  influence  which 
is  necessary. 

But  our  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  abundantly  con- 
firmed by  other  passages.  Our  Lord  on  another  occasion 
said  to  his  disciples,  "Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  As  the 
branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the 
vine,  no  more  can  ye,  except  ye  abide  in  me.  I  am  the 
vine,  ye  are  the  branches :  he  that  abideth  in  me,  and  I 
in  him,  the  same  bringeth  forth  much  fruit :  for  without 
me  ye  can  do  nothing,"  John  v,  4,  5.  In  this  text  the 
ability  to  "bear  fruit,"  or  obey  God,  is  made  to  depend  on 
abiding  in  Christ,  and  the  influence  which  that  union  se- 
cures, just  as  much  as  the  fruitfulness  of  the  branch  de- 
pends on  its  connection  with  the  vine,  and  the  influence 
which  the  -vine  imparts.  It  is  therefore  directly  at  va- 
riance Avith  the  doctrine  of  New  Divinity  on  this  sub- 
ject. Will  it  be  pretended  that  the  words  can  and  cannot, 
do  not,  in  this  instance,  refer  to  power  ?  Then  it  is  impos- 
sible to  place  them  in  any  connection  which  will  give 
them,  determinately,  that  meaning.  The  bearing  wliich 
this  text  has  on  the  point  in  controversy,  is  not  affected,  in 
the  least,  by  the  consideration  that  it  respects  the  ability 

2 


26  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

of  the  Christian  to  perform  tlie  duties  of  holiness.  For 
if  the  regenerate  man  cannot  bear  the  fruits  of  holiness  of 
himself — if  his  ability  to  do  this  depends  on  his  spiritual 
connection  with  Christ — it  would  be  absurd  enough  to  ima- 
gine that  the  unregenerate  man  is,  of  himself,  competent 
to  the  task. 

The  declaration,  "  "Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing,"  is 
supposed,  by  Mr.  Duffield,  to  refer  to  that  divine  energy 
by  which  we  are  upheld  in  being,  and  in  the  exercise  of 
our  facxdties,  and  not  to  the  additional  gracious  influences 
necessary  to  holiness.  It  is  important  to  ascertain  what 
is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  in  any  inspired  communication, 
but  it  is  a  matter  of  perfect  indifference  to  our  argument 
whether  we  adopt  Mr.  DufReld's  interpretation  or  not. 
Supposing  it  to  be  correct,  the  Saviour  enforces  his  ex- 
hortation to  abide  in  him  by  two  considerations.  One,  is 
the  necessity  of  abiding  in  him,  in  order  to  be  able  to  bring 
forth  fruit.  The  other,  is  the  fact  that  we  are  also  de- 
pendant on  him,  who  claims  our  services,  for  the  continu- 
ance of  our  lives. 

The  doctrine  of  a  natural  ability,  to  repent  and  believe 
the  gospel,  is  pointedly  contradicted  by  the  following 
words  :  "  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin  and  the  leo- 
pard his  spots  ?  Then  may  ye  also  do  good  that  are  ac- 
customed to  do  evil,"  Jer.  xiii,  23.  This  is  felt  by  the 
advocates  of  that  doctrine  to  be  an  important  passage. 
Mr.  Hinton  makes  a  resolute,  yet  ineffectual  effort  to  carry 
his  theory  over  the  difficulty  it  interposes.  He  lays  down 
the  following  rule  for  the  interpretation  of  metaphorical 
passages  :  "  We  have  only  to  notice  the  features  in  lohich 
the  objects  compared  agree  or  disagree :  in  those  iii  which 
they  agree,  the  ordinary  import  which  is  now  metaphorically 
used  will  apply  ;  in  those  in  which  they  do  not  agree,  its  ap- 
plication is  not  to  be  attempted."  To  this  rule  we  have  no 
objection,  but  it  fails  to  render  Mr.  Hinton  any  service 


NEW  DIVINITY — AB1LIT7.  37 

in  this  instance.  He  proceeds  to  its  application,  and  we 
ask  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  process.  He  first 
decides,  authoritatively,  that  there  is  no  agreement  between 
the  objects  compared,  namely,  the  sinner,  and  the  Ethio- 
pian, and  leopard,  with  respect  to  power,  and  then  his  rule 
requires  that  he  should  look  elsewhere  for  the  point  of 
agreement.  Accordingly,  after  having  assured  us  that  "  It 
is  evident  that  there  is  no  similarity  in  the  two  cases  in  re- 
spect of  capability  of  change,  and  on  this  point  therefore 
nothing  can  be  learnt  from  the  comparison,"  he  decides 
that,  "  the  aspect  in  which  the  cases  are  similar  is  the 
actual  nonproduction  of  the  result,  and  the  certainty  that  it 
will  not  be  produced.'^  But  we  would  suggest  to  Mr.  Hin- 
ton  that  there  is  a  difference  of  opinion,  as  to  whether  the 
objects  may  be  compared  in  respect  to  "  capability  of 
change."  This  is  the  very  point  in  question.  Nor  can 
we  consent  that  it  shall  be  settled  in  so  summary  a  man- 
ner. We  have  appealed  from  the  philosophy  of  New 
Divinity,  and  brought  the  question  to  be  settled  by  the  au- 
thority of  inspiration,  and  have  found  a  text  expressly  de- 
signed to  assert  the  similarity  which  Mr.  Hinton  denies. 
It  teaches,  in  plain  terms,  that  the  wicked  man  can  no 
more  make  himself  a  good  man  than  the  Ethiopian  caa 
change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots.  But  the  advo- 
cates of  New  Divinity  seem  determined  that  the  Scriptures 
shall  give  us  no  information  on  this  subject,  but  such  as 
accords  with  their  theory.  If  Christ  himself  declares,  in 
plain,  literal  terms,  that  no  man  can  come  unto  him,  with- 
out divine  influence,  they  tell  us  that  he  means  nothing 
more  than  that  no  man  will  come  vmto  him  without  such 
influence ;  that  he  says  nothing  about  the  power.  If  he 
assures  us  that  it  is  impossible  for  men,  unaided,  to  repent 
and  believe,  Mr.  Hinton  says  that,  "  when  the  matter 
comes  to  be  examined,  it  will  be  found  that,  with  whatever 
force  we  may  use  the  terms  cannot  and  impossible,  we  do 


Bo  NEW  DIVINITV— ABlLlTir. 

not  mean  that  we  are  destitute  of  power."  This  therefore 
is  no  proof  of  inability.  If,  to  make  the  matter  still  more 
definite,  comparisons  are  instituted,  and  the  word  of  inspi- 
ration assures  us  that  the  sinner  can  no  more  do,  with- 
out divine  assistance,  what  is  required  of  him,  than  the 
Ethiopian  can  change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots, 
or  the  branch  bear  fruit  of  itself,  separated  from  the  vine, 
these  theorists  insist  that  there  is  no  similarity  between 
the  objects  compared  in  respect  to  ability  ;  that  the  sinner 
is  able,  without  the  Spirit's  influences,  to  do  whatever  God 
demands  of  him  ;  that  the  comparison  must  refer  to  some- 
thing else  than  ability,  and  therefore  "  indicates  nothing 
respecting  the  sinner's  ability."  Such  criticism  sets  all 
authority  on  the  subject  at  defiance. 

It  is  universally  imderstood  that  the  term  cannot  is  fre- 
quently used  to  signify  strong  disinclination ;  but  it  is 
dotxbtful  whether  it  is  used  to  state,  as  a  matter  of  fact 
merely,  that  an  event  will  not  take  place.  When  we  say 
of  a  friend,  that  he  cannot  go  to  a  certain  place  at  a  cer- 
tain time,  we  have  reference  to  an  impediment  in  some 
form.  We  mean  that  there  is  an  insuperable  hinderance 
to  his  going,  or  that  it  is  very  inconvenient  for  him  to  go, 
or  that  he  is  strongly  disinclined  to  go.  We  do  not  use 
the  term  cannot  to  signify  merely  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
he  will  not  go.  Mr.  Hinton,  therefore,  takes  a  greater 
hberty  with  the  text  than  appears  at  the  first  glance.  He 
not  only  decides,  without  any  evidence,  that  the  word  can 
is  used  in  this  instance  figuratively,  but  gives  it  a  mean- 
ing that  it  never  bears.  However,  he  does  not  abide  by 
any  one  interpretation.  He  tells  us,  in  the  same  para- 
graph, that  the  metaphor  "  does  nothing  more  than  express 
emphatically  the  fixedness  of  a  sinner\<t  determination.^^  It 
appears,  then,  that  it  does  something  more  than  state  the 
fact  that  the  change  will  not  be  produced.  It  specifies 
the  cause  of  that  fact, — the  fixedness  of  a  sinner's  deter- 


NEW  DIVINITY ^ABILITY.  29. 

niination.  Are  we  to  understand,  then,  that  this  is  the 
point  of  agreement  ?  The  Ethiopian  may,  possibly,  have 
a  fixed  determination  not  to  change  his  skin.  The  leopard 
may  have  obstinately  made  up  his  mind  not  to  change  his 
spots.  But  the  text  gives  us  no  information  to  this  effect. 
It  tells  us,  in  plain  terras,  that  they  cannot  do  these  things, 
and  definitely  specifies  the  inability  as  the  point  of  simili- 
tude. 

The  following  passage  also  bears  decisively  on  the  sub- 
ject of  controversy :  "  Verily,  I  say  vmto  you,  that  a  rich 
man  shall  hardly  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And 
again  I  say  unto  you,  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through 
the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  king- 
dom of  God.  When  his  disciples  heard  it,  they  were  ex- 
ceedingly amazed,  saying,  "Who  then  can  be  saved  1  But 
Jesus  beheld  them,  and  said  unto  them.  With  men  this  is 
impossible,  but  with  God  all  things  are  possible,"  Matt. 
xix,  23-26. 

In  these  words  the  Saviour,  in  the  first  instance,  in- 
structs his  disciples  that  the  difficidty  of  entering  the  king- 
dom of  God  is  increased  by  the  circumstances  in  which 
riches  place  their  possessors.  He  then  goes  further,  and 
asserts  an  impossibility  in  the  case.  This  he  does  by  a 
very  strong  comparison — "  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle."  That  he  meant  to  affirm 
an  impossibility  by  these  words  is  plain,  from  the  subse- 
quent declaration — "  With  men  it  is  impossible."  The 
reply  of  the  disciples  indicates  that  they  so  understood 
him.  It  cannot,  however,  be  supposed  that  ^this  impossi- 
bility is  created  by  the  possession  of  riches — that  while  it 
is  impossible  for  the  rich,  it  is  possible  for  the  poor  to 
enter  the  kingdom  of  God.  For  then,  we  must  conclude, 
either  that  no  rich  men  enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  that 
God  employs  an  influence  to  enable  them,  which  is  not 
necessary  in  the  case  of  others.     If  the  first  supposition 


3t)  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

were  adopted,  it  would  be  contradicted  by  facts,  as  re- 
corded in  Scripture,  If  the  second,  all  rich  men  would 
be  admitted  exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  a  natural  ability 
to  repent  and  believe.  The  meaning  of  the  Saviour's  as- 
sertion of  impossibility  is  explained  by  the  declaration, 
"  With  men  it  is  impossible" — men  in  general — all  men.  It 
is  also  sufficiently  evident  that  our  Lord  did  not  intend  to 
affirm  an  absolute  impossibility,  but  merely  so  far  as  un- 
aided human  power  is  concerned.  "  With  men  it  is  im- 
possible." This  impossibility  is  and  must  be  removed  by 
divine  influence.     "  With  God  all  things  are  possible." 

Will  it  be  objected  here  that  the  Saviour  restricts  the 
comparison  to  rich  men,  and  therefore  our  interpretation 
involves  the  absurdity  that  there  are  degrees  of  impossi- 
bility— that  it  is  more  impossible  for  a  rich  than  for  a  poor 
man  ?  We  reply  that  he  did  not  intend  to  restrict  it  to 
rich  men.  When  the  disciples,  astonished  at  his  words, 
asked  who  then  could  be  saved,  he  confirmed  the  impres- 
sion produced,  by  applying  the  declaration  to  men  in  ge- 
neral. He  applied  it  to  rich  men  in  the  first  instance, 
because  he  was  speaking  of  rich  men.  He  may  also  have 
had  some  special  design  in  giving  the  general  principle 
this  particular  application.  Besides,  if  we  were  to  adopt 
the  principle  of  interpretation  which  New  Divinity  prefers, 
and  understand  the  words  as  teaching,  merely,  that  a  camel 
will  sooner  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  a  rich  man 
will  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  without  divine  influence, 
nothing  would  be  gained,  for  they  xmderstand  this  to  be 
equally  true  of  all  men,  and  are  therefore  as  much  exposed 
to  the  objection  as  their  opponents. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  objected,  that,  allowing  that  there  is 
an  impossibility  affecting  all  men  in  this  matter,  it  is  ab- 
surd to  talk  of  the  difficulty  being  greater  in  the  case  of 
the  rich  than  of  the  poor.  But  the  objection  would  not  be 
valid.     For,  when  grace  has  removed  the  impossibility. 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  51 

there  may  be  various  degrees  of  difficulty,  according  to 
the  habits  of  men,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  they 
are  placed. 

The  doctrine  of  the  text  tinder  consideration  is,  that  it 
is  impossible  for  men,  rich  or  poor,  to  do,  without  divine 
influence,  Avhat  is  necessary  to  their  entering  the  kingdom 
of  God ;  that,  when  the  impossibility  is  thus  removed,  the 
performance  of  the  exercises  required  may  still  be  attend- 
ed with  difficulty,  which  may  be  increased  or  diminished 
by  circumstances ;  and  that  the  possession  of  riches  con- 
stitutes a  great  difficulty,  so  that  a  rich  man  shall  hardly 
enter  the  kingdom  of  God. 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  now  asked  to  a  third 
class  of  Scriptures,  bearing  still  more  decisively,  if  possi- 
ble, on  the  point  in  question.  The  apostle,  in  the  epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  uses  this  language:  "  For  the  flesh  lust- 
eth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh ; 
and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other ;  so  that  ye 
CANNOT  do  the  things  that  ye  would,"  v,  17.  Had  the 
apostle  foreseen  the  heresy  we  are  combating,  and  de- 
signed to  record  his  decision  against  it,  he  could  not  have 
used  language  more  expressive  of  his  design.  He  not 
only  uses  terms  which  convey  the  idea  of  inability,  but 
expressly  cuts  off  the  pretence  that  the  difficulty  is  solely 
a  want  of  will.  He  asserts  inability  to  do  that  to  which 
the  will  is  favourable.  An  attempt  to  confonn  this  text 
to  the  New  School  theory  would  make  it  say,  Ye  would 
not  do  the  things  that  ye  would. 

There  is  a  parallel  passage  in  the  epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans : — "  For  we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual ;  but  I 
am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  For  that  which  I  do,  I  allow 
not ;  for  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not ;  but  what  I  hate, 
that  do  I.  If  then  I  do  that  which  I  would  not,  I  consent 
unto  the  law,  that  it  is  good.  Now,  then,  it  is  no  more  I 
that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  ia  me  :  for  I  know  that  in 


32"*  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

me  (that  is,  in  my  flesh)  dwelleth  no  good  thing :  for  to 
will  is  present  with  me,  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is 
good  I  find  not ;  for  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not ;  but 
the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  Now  if  I  do  that 
I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwell- 
eth in  me.  I  find  then  a  law  that  when  I  would  do  good, 
evil  is  present  with  me.  For  I  deUght  in  the  law  of  God, 
after  the  inward  man !  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  mem- 
bers warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me 
into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members. 
O  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the 
body  of  this  death?"  Chap,  vii,  14,  &c. 

Here  is  the  most  direct  and  explicit  contradiction  of  the 
doctrine,  that  the  sinner  is  subject  to  no  other  inability, 
respecting  the  law  of  God,  than  mere  unwillingness,  that 
could  possibly  be  framed. 

But  the  advocates  of  New  Divinity  are  so  accustomed 
to  reconciling  contradictions,  that  they  do  not  readily  aban- 
don a  favourite  theory  on  account  of  them.  It  requires 
but  a  flourish  of  Mr.  Duflield's  pen  to  sweep  these  for- 
midable difficulties  aside,  and  press  the  scriptures  which 
originate  them  into  his  service.  On  the  passage  from 
Galatians  he  thus  comments  : — When  the  English  trans- 
lation makes  the  same  apostle  say,  'the  flesh  lusteth 
against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh,  and 
these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot 
do  the  things  that  ye  would,^  it  will  be  seen  by  every  one 
acquainted  with  the  original,  that  the  word  cannot  is  not 
used  by  the  apostle  himself.  He  merely  states  the  fact, 
that  those  in  whom  the  conflict  between  the  flesh  and 
Spirit  is  waged,  do  not  the  tilings  they  Avould." 

Admitting  the  propriety  of  this  criticism,  there  is  nothing 
gained  by  it.  The  doctrine  which  the  text  is  brought  for- 
ward to  disprove  is,  that  the  sole  reason  why  the  law  of 
God  is  not  kept,  is  the  want  of  a  will  to  keep  it ;  that  this 


KBW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  3* 

is  the  only  obstacle.  But,  according  to  Mr.  Duffield's 
own  rendering,  the  will  is  present,  and  yet  the  things  that 
are  willed  are  not  done.  "Ye  do  not  the  things  that  ye 
would."  So  that  we  are  compelled  to  assign  some  other 
cause  for  the  failure  than  want  of  will.  The  explanation 
Mr.  Duffield  gives  is,  "  Such  is  the  activity  of  the  conflict, 
that  a  present  purpose  of  will  is  succeeded  and  counter- 
acted by  another,  before  it  is  executed."  But  in  this  ex- 
planation the  author  contradicts,  first  himself,  and  then  the 
apostle.  He  grants  that  there  "  is  a  present  purpose  of 
will,"  which,  according  to  his  theory  of  ability,  is  all  that 
is  necessary,  and  yet  admits  the  failure  ;  thus  contradict- 
ing himself.  He  then  contradicts  the  apostle  by  persist- 
ing to  assign  the  want  of  will  as  the  sole  cause  of  the 
failure.  The  "  present  purpose  of  will"  is  so  temporary 
and  powerless,  that  before  the  things  willed  have  time  to 
be  executed,  it  is  absent.  It  is  "  succeeded  and  counter- 
acted" by  a  purpose  of  will  not  to  do,  which  is  the  reason 
why  the  things  are  not  done,  whereas  the  apostle  says, 
"  Ye  cannot  do,"  or  ye  do  not,  "  the  things  that  ye  would." 
The  author,  however,  is  not  sure  of  what  character  the 
will  is,  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  ;  whether  it  is  sinful 
or  holy.  He  says,  "  The  Greek  particle,  translated  so 
that,  sometimes  denotes  design ;  and  if  in  this  sense  it  is 
to  be  here  understood,  the  apostle's  meaning  is,  that  the 
influence  of  the  Spirit  in  the  believer  is  vouchsafed  to 
counteract  and  frustrate  his  evil  inclinations.  This  we 
prefer,  as  being  most  agreeable  to  the  apostle's  assurance, 
expressed  in  the  previous  verse."  But  this  interpretation 
does  not  extricate  him  from  his  difficnlties.  It  forces  upon 
him  a  doctrine  which,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  he  is  by  no 
means  prepared  to  adopt — ^that  the  believer  has  not  a 
natural  ability  to  commit  sin.  He  has  a  will  to  sin,  but 
the  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  vouchsafed  to  counteract  and 
frustrate  his  sinfu!  inclinations,  so  that  he  cannot  do,  or 

2* 


34  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

does  not,  the  things  that  he  would.  Now,  as  there  are  but 
two  kinds  of  ability  concerned  in  this  matter,  according  to 
the  statements  of  Mr  Duffield  and  his  New  Divinity  asso- 
ciates, and  the  will  is  the  moral  ability,  it  clearly  follows, 
that  whatever  prevents,  when  there  is  a  will,  must  be  a 
natural  inability.  This,  then,  is  the  position  in  which  our 
interpreter  places  himself.  The  believer  wills  to  perform 
the  works  of  the  flesh.  All  that  he  wants  is  the  natural 
ability.  The  Spirit  is  given  to  "  frustrate  his  sinful  incli 
nations,"  so  that  he  fails  to  do  what  he  wills  to  do,  which 
is  of  course  to  destroy  the  natural  ability  respecting  those 
things.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  for  consistency's  sake,  that  Mr. 
Duffield  will  not  be  found  among  those  who  hold  that  no 
Christian  can,  or  ever  could,  or  ever  did,  or  ever  will,  live 
without  sin. 

But  he  is  not  yet  satisfied.  "  If  it,"  the  Greek  particle, 
we  suppose,  "  denotes  merely  the  result  eventually,  no- 
thing more  can  be  inferred  from  it,  than  that  the  influence 
'  of  the  Spirit,  which  generates  a  holy  inclination,  is  coun- 
teracted by  corrupt  desires  and  affections,  so  that  it  does 
not  issue  in  the  accomplishment  of  that  to  which  he  was 
inclined,  or  which  he  willed."  Nothing  more  can  be  in- 
ferred from  it !  Who  would  wish  to  infer  any  more  from 
it  ?  The  inference  which  Mr.  Duffield  affects  to  consider 
so  harmless,  is  death  to  the  doctrine  that  the  want  of  the 
will  is  the  only  obstacle  in  the  way  of  keeping  the  com- 
mandments. It  states  that  "  the  influence  of  the  Spirit 
generates  a  holy  inclination,"  and  yet  the  holy  inclination 
"  does  not  issue  in  the  accomplishment  of  that  to  which 
he  was  inclined,  or  which  he  willed,"  and  attributes  the 
failure,  not  to  want  of  will  or  inclination,  as  docs  the  New 
School  doctrine  of  ability,  but  to  sometliing  which  Mr. 
Duffield  styles  "  corrupt  desires  and  affections,"  and  which 
the  apostle  styles  "  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,"  by  which  the 
holy  inclinatiott  or  will  is  frustrated.     Docs  this  comport 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  35 

with  the  doctrine  that  every  man  has  a  natural  abiUty  to 
keep  the  law — that  all  that  he  wants  is  the  will  or 
moral  ability — that  when  he  has  the  will,  he  has  both 
the  natural  and  moral  ability?  Does  not  this  inference 
plainly  imply,  that  not  only  must  there  be  the  will  or  in- 
clination, but  likewise,  that  those  "  corrupt  desires  and 
affections,"  which  are  represented  as  distinct  from  the 
will,  and  which  defeat  it,  must  be  overcome  by  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  The  author  professes  to  be  in- 
different as  to  "  which,  if  either,  of  the  two  constructions 
should  be  exclusively  preferred,"  as  neither  view  militates 
against  the  doctrine  he  has  advanced.  He  may  well  be 
indifferent  on  this  point,  not  because  neither  view  mili- 
tates against  his  doctrine,  but  because  they  equally  militate 
against  it.  His  utmost  efforts  to  wrest  the  text  from  liis 
opponents,  and  bribe  it  to  bear  testimony  in  his  favour, 
have  been  succeeded  by  the  most  fatal  responses. 

Having  disposed  of  this  passage  in  so  summary  and 
masterly  a  style,  he  proceeds  to  that  from  Romans,  and 
affirms  that  nothing  can  be  inferred  from  it  unfavourable 
to  his  views  of  human  ability.  Let  us  compare  them. 
The  view  of  ability  which  he'  advocates  is,  that  man  has 
naturally  the  ability  to  keep  the  law,  and  that  nothing  is 
wanted  but  the  will.  The  apostle  says,  "  For  to  will  is 
present  with  me  ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which  is  good, 
I  find  not.  For  the  good  that  I  would,  I  do  not ;  but  the 
evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do."  Can  nothing  be  in- 
ferred from  this  language  of  the  apostle  unfavourable  to 
the  proposition  with  which  it  is  collated  ?  It  must  be,  then, 
because  they  so  directly  and  positively  contradict  each 
other,  that  there  is  no  room  for  inference  in  the  case.  But 
so  far  from  finding  this  text  in  his  way,  he  derives  from  it, 
also,  "  confirmation  of  the  views"  he  has  advanced.  It  is 
certainly  worth  while  to  inquire  how.  The  process  will 
no  doubt  be  highly  instructive  to  those  who  have  not  been 


36  NEW  DIVINITY-^— ABILITV. 

fully  initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  New  School  criticism 
"  It  is  evident,"  lie  says,  "  that  the  apostle  cannot  here  use 
the  word  '  will'  to  denote  a  simple  volition ;  for  no  one 
ever  acts  or  does  any  thing  without  some  volition.  The 
word  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  the  main  and  efRcient, 
the  leading  and  controlling  purpose  ;  and  in  this  sense  we 
suppose  the  apostle  used  it  in  the  context  first  quoted. 
His  meaning  is  therefore  very  plain.  If  he  does  not 
voluntarily  and  deliberately  purpose  to  do  evil,  but  on  the 
contrary,  if  it  is  his  fixed  and  abiding,  and  studious  pur- 
pose to  do  what  the  laAv  of  God  reqiures,  it  shows  that 
the  moral  being,  the  I,  whose  character  was  to  be  esti- 
mated by  this,  its  leading  feature,  did  fully  approve  of  the 
law  of  God ;  and  that,  therefore,  of  whatever  deviations 
from  it  he  was  guilty,  they  were  to  be  attributed  to  the 
influence  of  sin,  which  he  personifies,  and  not  to  the  deep 
and  fixed  principles  of  his  renovated  character.  His  will, 
in  the  main,  was  right,  but  it  was  resisted,  counteracted, 
and  ofttimes  overpowered  by  various  considerations,  of 
which  he  did  not  cordially  and  deliberately  approve,  nor 
of  that  Avhich  they  led  him  to  do.  Here  again  we  derive 
a  confirmation  of  the  views  advanced,  from  the  very  ob- 
jections urged  against  them."  We,  will  venture  to  ex- 
amine this  triumphant  reasoning.  The  author  supposes 
the  apostle  to  be  speaking  of  his  own  experience,  in  this 
passage.  This  assumption  it  is  not  necessary  to  call  in 
question  in  the  present  argument.  According  to  his  ex- 
planation, the  word  "  will,"  denotes  the  main  and  efiicient, 
the  loading  and  controlling  purpose  ;  and  it  Avas  the  fixed, 
abiding,  and  studious  purpose  of  the  apostle,  to  do  what  the 
law  requires,  which,  according  to  the  natural  ability  theory, 
is  all  that  is  neccssaiy  to  secure  its  fulfilment ;  and  that 
the  moral  being,  the  I,  is  to  be  estimated  by  this,  its  lead- 
ing feature.  And  yet  the  apostle  did  not  perform  what 
the  law  requires.     *'  The  deviations"  of  Avhich  he  *'  was 


NEW  DIVINITY— ABILITY.  37 

guilty,"  however,  '*  are  not  to  be  attributed  to  a  voluntary 
and  deliberate  purpose  to  do  evil."  "  His  w^ill,  in  the 
main,  was  right."  They  are  to  be  "  attributed  to  the  in- 
fluence of  sin,  which  he  personifies."  "  His  will"  to  do 
right  "  was  resisted,  counteracted,  and  ofttimes  over- 
powered by  various  considerations,  of  which  he  did  not 
cordially  and  deliberately  approve,  nor  of  that  which  they 
led  him  to  do."  And  this  is  not  only  consistent  with  the 
doctrine  that  the  apostle  had  a,  natural  ability  to  keep  the 
law,  and  that  nothing  was  necessary  to  secure  obedience 
but  the  will,  but  also  a  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  !  Most 
admirable  ! !  But  while  we  may  be  almost  mute  with  ad- 
miration, we  can  hardly  avoid  asking,  Was  the  apostle 
destitute  of  the  "  will,"  while  it  was  his  fixed,  abiding, 
studious,  efficient,  and  controlling  purpose  to  keep  the 
law  ?  And  what  became  of  the  natural  ability,  while  the 
"will" — "the  /" — the  "moral  being" — "the  fixed  pur- 
pose," &c.,  was  engaged  in  the  unequal  and  unsuccessful 
conflict  with  "  the  personified  influence  of  sin,"  and  the 
"  various  considerations"  by  "  which  it  was  resisted,  coun- 
teracted, and  overpowered?" 

There  is  a  feature  in  Mr.  Duffield's  explanation  of  this 
text  which  deserves  to  be  more  fully  developed.  It  as- 
sumes a  very  modest  and  retiring  aspect  in  this  instance, 
but  old  acquaintance  leads  to  a  ready  recognition.  We 
have  looked  upon  it  before  now.  The  apostle  he  sup- 
poses to  be  speaking  of  his  own  experience.  The  word 
'*  will"  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  the  main  and  efficient, 
the  leading  and  controlling  purpose  ;  and  in  this  sense  he 
supposes  the  apostle  used  it.  It  appears,  then,  that  the 
apostle  was  alternately  under  the  influence  of  two  pur- 
poses— one  a  purpose  to  do  what  the  law  requires,  the 
other  a  purpose  to  do  what  the  law  forbids.  This,  ac- 
cording to  the  New  School  doctrine,  was  the  character 
of  the  Apostle  Paul.     He  had  a  natural  ability  to  obey  the 


38  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

law  of  God,  or  to  disobey  it.  All  that  was  necessary  in 
either  case  was  the  will.  He  had  a  fixed,  studious,  abid- 
ing, leading,  controlling  purpose  to  obey,  and  this  consti- 
tuted "the  deep  and  fixed  principles  of  Iris  renovated 
character."  But  he  had,  at  the  same  time,  a  secondary 
and  inferior  purpose  to  commit  sin ;  and  the  leading  pur- 
pose frequently  gave  way  to  the  inferior  purpose  ;  so  that 
when  he  was  inclined  to  keep  the  law,  he  kept  it,  and 
when  he  was  inclined  to  violate  it,  he  violated  it.  He  was 
inclined  to  violate  the  law  so  frequently,  that  he  was  in 
bondage  to  the  inferior  and  sinful  purpose ;  and  so  strong 
and  determined  was  his  inclination  to  sin,  that  when  the 
holy  inclination,  generated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  main 
and  controlling  pm-pose,  conflicted  with  the  inferior  pur- 
pose, the  inferior  purpose  overcame,  and  became  of  course 
the  "  controlling"  purpose  ;  and,  on  retrospecting  his 
course,  he  was  led  to  exclaim,  "  O  wretched  man  that  I 
am,  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death !" 
T^his  is  shocking !  I  would  be  afraid  of  being  posted  for  a 
slanderer,  if  I  were  to  give  such  an  account  of  the  reli- 
gious character  of  the  Rev.  George  Duffield. 

The  impossibility  of  conforming  this  text  to  the  doc- 
trines of  New  Divinity  is  made  more  and  more  apparent, 
by  each  additional  efibrt  to  that  end.  Mr.  Hinton  employs, 
substantially,  the  same  interpretation  with  Mr.  Duffield. 
He  tells  us  that  "  These  expressions  represent  his  dispo- 
sition, or  the  habitually  prevailing  state  of  his  heart,  which 
dictated  a  holy  and  devoted  conduct,  and  gave  this  main 
character  to  his  life.  He  found,  however,  '  another  law 
in  his  members,'  an  inclination  to  sin,  '  Avarring  against 
the  law  of  his  mind,'  and  the  emotions  produced  in  conse- 
quence of  this  were  sometimes  strong  enough  to  prevent 
the  fulfilment  of  his  holy  and  devoted  purposes." — Page 
'^G4.  Here,  then,  is  a  prevailing  state  of  the  heart,  dic- 
tating holy  and  devoted   conduct-— producing  holy  and 


NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY.  39 

devoted  purposes,  and  efforts  to  carry  them  into  effect, 
and  yet  the  good  that  is  purposed  is  not  executed.  Why  ? 
Because  depravity  produces  emotions  strong  enough  to 
prevent  their  fulfilment.  And  all  this  is  perfectly  consist- 
ent with  the  doctrine  that  every  man  has  a  natural  ability 
to  do  the  good  that  is  required  of  him,  and  is  prevented 
only  by  a  criminal  unw^illingness  !  Indeed,  the  "  whole 
passage  appears"  to  Mr.  Hinton  "to  be  remote  from  the 
question  of  power."  The  fact  that  another  is  "  strong 
enough"  to  overcome  me,  it  seems,  is  no  proof  that  I  am 
not  "  strong  enough"  to  overcome  him.  But  there  is  an- 
other view  of  this  subject.  If  depravity  is  sometimes 
strong  enough,  in  the  estimation  of  these  writers,  to  over- 
come and  defeat  efforts  to  do  good  produced  by  holy  pur- 
poses, which  are  dictated  and  sustained  by  holy  prevalent 
dispositions,  what  must  be  the  state  of  the  case  when  the 
depraved  emotions  and  inclinations  are  sustained  by  a 
settled  and  prevailing  disposition  to  sin  ?  Mr.  Hinton  shall 
answer  this  question.  He  says,  in  the  preceding  page, 
"  If  the  emotions  excited  should  be  always  in  harmony 
with  the  existing  disposition,  then  there  would  be  no  possi- 
bility of  an  action  in  any  degree  contrary  to  the  disposition 
itself.'^  This  is  conclusive.  It  places  the  unregenerate 
man  in  this  condition,  that  unless  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  some 
other  power,  excite  emotions  at  variance  with  what  is 
known  to  be  the  settled  disposition  of  every  unregenerate 
man,  there  would  be  no  possibility  of  any  other  than  sinful 
action. 

Mr.  Barnes  also  fails  to  explain  this  passage  v/ithout 
flatly  contradicting  his  theory.  On  the  words,  "  but  how 
to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not,"  he  remarks,  "  I 
do  not  find  it  in  my  power ;  or  I  find  strong  obstacles,  so 
that  I  fail  of  doing  it."  He  adds,  "  The  obstacles  are  not 
natural,  but  such  as  arise  from  long  indulgence  in  sin  ;  the 
strong  native  propensity  to  evil."     This  appears  to  be 


40  KEW  DIVINITY — ABILITT. 

designed  to  leave  the  impression  that  his  doctrine  of  na- 
tural ability  is  not  contradicted  ;  and  we  suppose  it  must 
appear  very  plain  to  Mr.  B.'s  readers,  at  least  those  who 
are  capable  of  understanding  such  nice  discriminations, 
that  obstacles  which  arise  from  a  "  strong  native  pro- 
pensity" "  are  not  natural." 

In  perfect  harmony  with  the  inspired  testimonies  which 
we  have  cited,  and  equally  at  variance  with  the  New  School 
theory  of  ability,  are  those  prayers  for  help  and  strength 
which  are  recorded  in  the  Scriptures.  The  imsuccessful 
conflict,  described  in  the  seventh  chapter  to  the  Romans, 
leads  to  the  affecting  appeal,  "  O  wretched  man  that  I  am, 
who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death."  How 
absurd  ! — yea,  worse — how  insulting  to  Jehovah,  is  this 
call  for  deliverance,  if  the  petitioner  possesses  a  natural 
ability  to  do  all  the  good  that  is  required  of  him,  and  is 
prevented  wholly  by  a  criminal  unwillingness ! !  Who 
would  be  surprised  if  God  shovdd  answer  such  a  call,  from 
the  secret  place  of  his  thunder,  in  terms  of  blasting  re- 
buke ?  The  apostle  writes  to  the  Ephesians  : — "  For  this 
cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  &c.,  that  he  woidd  grant  you,  accord- 
ing to  the  riches  of  his  grace,  to  be  strengthened  with 
might,  by  his  Spirit,  in  the  inner  man."  For  the  Colos- 
sians,  he  prays  that  they  might  be  "  strengthened  Avith  all 
might,  according  to  his  glorious  power,  imto  all  patience 
and  long-suffering  with  joyfulness."  The  Apostle  Peter 
prays  thus  :  "  The  God  of  all  grace,  &c.,  make  you  per- 
fect, stablish,  strengtJien,  settle  you."  But  why  do  the 
apostles  pray  to  God  that  he  would  strengthen  believers, 
if  every  man  possesses  a  natural  ability  to  do  whatever  is 
required  of  him  ? 

To  the  same  conclusion  do  those  passages  tend  which 
speak  of  strength  as  actually  communicated.  "  Like- 
wise," says  Paul,  "  the   Spirit  helpeth  our  infiroiities." 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  41 

Again :  "  And  he  said  unto  me,  My  grace  is  sufficient  for 
thee  :  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect  in  weakness.  Most 
gladly,  therefore,  will  I  rather  glory  in  mine  infirmities, 
that  the  power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me."  Again  : 
"  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and  trembling  ; 
for  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you  to  will  and  to  do  of  his 
good  pleasure."  The  Psalmist  says,  "  In  the  day  when 
I  cried  thou  answeredst  me,  and  strengthenedst  me  with 
strength  in  my  soul."  Why  is  this  strength  imparted,  if 
all  men  are  naturally  able  to  do  what  is  required  of  them? 

The  same  consequence  results  from  the  declarations 
which  are  given  respecting  the  sufficiency  of  grace.  "My 
grace  is  sufficient  for  thee  ;"  "  I  can  do  all  things  through 
Christ  who  strenglheneth  me."  Why  these  declarations 
of  the  sufficiency  of  grace,  if  men  are  able,  without  it,  to  do 
what  God  requires  of  them. 

If,  then,  the  Scriptures  assure  us  that  the  grace  of  God 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  enable  us  to  do  the  will  of  God 
— if  they  inform  us  that  the  apostles  prayed  that  grace 
might  be  ■  imparted  for  that  very  purpose — if  they  inform 
us  that  for  this  very  purpose  grace  is  actually  communi- 
cated— if  they  emphatically  assure  us  of  the  sufficiency 
of  grace  for  that  purpose — and  if  they  clearly  state  that 
the  inability  which  grace  is  intended  to  remove  is  not  vm- 
willingness  merely,  but  an  inability  which  exists  after  the 
will  is  brought  over  to  the  side  of  obedience,  and  while  it 
is  making  repeated  and  desperate  effiarts  to  keep  the  com- 
mandments— what  stronger  evidence  can  be  imagined 
against  the  doctrine,  that  all  men  have  a  natural  ability  to 
do  what  is  required,  as  indispensable  to  salvation?  "What 
need  we  any  further  witnesses  ?" 


42  NEW  DIVINITY-»-ABrLITY. 

CHAPTER  III. 

ABILITY    CONTINUED. 

Unscriptural  as  is  this  doctrine,  its  advocates  are 
elaborate  in  its  defence.  We  proceed,  therefore,  to  ex- 
amine the  arguments  by  which  they  endeavour  to  sus- 
tain it. 

f  Mr.  Barnes  distinguishes  ability  into  kinds,  and  as- 
sumes that  he  has  gained  his  point  when  he  has  shown 
that  man  must  be  supposed  to  possess  some  kind  of  ability, 
or  ability  in  some  sense.  "  It  is  certainly  possible,"  he 
says,  "  that  a  man  reading  the  word  unable  in  the  confes- 
sion, may  have  learned  to  suppose  that  it  meant  all  kinds 
of  inability." — Defence,  p.  79.  Again  :  "  There  are  two 
kinds  of  inability  ;  one  arising  from  the  want  of  physical 
power,  the  other  from  a  want  of  inclination  or  will." — 
p.  153.  Again  :  "  If  Dr.  Junkin  charges  me  with  error  in 
this,"  that  is,  in  holding  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  to 
repent  and  believe,  "  he  holds  the  contrary,  that  is,  '  that 
unrcgenerate  men  are  not  able  to  keep  the  commandments 
of  God  ;  that  there  is  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  yield  obe- 
dience, &c.'  "  It  is  here  assumed,  evidently,  that  to  deny 
that  man  has  a  natural  ability,  is  to  deny  that  he  has  any 
kind  of  ability  ;  and,  of  course,  that  to  prove  that  he  has  a 
kind  of  ability,  is  to  prove  that  he  has  a  natural  ability. 
In  answering  this  argument  we  shall  not  object  to  the  prac- 
tice of  distinguishing  ability  into  kinds.  It  is  based  on 
the  common  distribution  of  the  faculties  of  our  nature  into 
physical  or  corporeal,  intellectual,  and  moral.  It  is  sup- 
posed that  each  class  of  faculties  has  its  own  peculiar 
energy.  Hence  metaphysicians  speak  of  physical,  intel- 
lectual, and  moral  power.  From  this  reasonable  classifi- 
cation the  distinction  of  ability  into  natural  and  moral  de- 
rives all  its  plausibility.    But  the  latter  distinction  is  very 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  43 

different  from  the  former,  and  is  wholly  arbitrary,  as  will 
be  shown  hereafter.  It  is  contrived  for  theological  pur- 
poses. 

Is  it  not,  however,  grossly  absurd  to  pretend  that  an 
individual  has  a  natural  ability  to  perform  a  particular  ac- 
tion, or  a  certain  series  of  actions,  merely  because  he 
possesses  a  kind  of  power,  while  he  may  be  destitute  of 
other  kinds,  equally  indispensable  ?  Does  it  not  require  all 
the  kinds  of  power  requisite  to  the  performance  of  an  ac- 
tion, to  constitute  the  ability  to  perform  it  1  Besides,  power 
may  be  divided  into  degrees  as  well  as  kinds ;  and  it  takes 
all  the  kinds  and  all  the  degrees  of  power,  necessary  to 
the  performance  of  an  action,  to  constitute  the  ability  in 
question.  If  there  be  absent  any  one  of  the  kinds  of  power 
which  may  be  requisite,  or  if  there  be  a  defect  as  to  the 
degree  of  power,  the  ability  to  perform  the  action  does  not 
exist.  To  assert  the  existence  of  ability  to  perform  a 
specific  action,  in  the  absence  of  one  or  more  of  the  essen- 
tial constituents  of  that  ability,  is  as  absurd  as  to  assert 
the  existence  of  a  whole  in  the  absence  of  several  of  its 
component  parts. 

Samson  possessed  power  to  sunder  the  green  withs 
with  which  the  Philistines  bound  him,  and  to  carry  off  the 
ponderous  gates  of  Gaza.  Now,  admitting  that  ability  is 
distinguishable  into  kinds,  the  ability  of  Samson  must  have 
included  all  the  kinds  and  degrees  of  ability,  which  the 
performances  alluded  to  necessarily  called  into  action. 
Had  he  been  destitute  of  any  one  of  the  requisite  kinds ; 
or,  possessing  all  the  kinds,  had  he  been  destitute  of  the 
requisite  degree,  he  could  not  have  burst  the  withs,  he 
could  not  have  upheaved  the  gates.  It  is  not  merely  a 
kind  of  ability  that  is  wanted,  but  the  ability  itself.  The 
case  is  plain.  I  have  all  the  kinds  of  ability  that  Samson 
had,  namely,  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral,  and  yet  I 
have  not  ability  to  perform  feats  of  strength  equal  to  those 


44  I^EW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

which  he  performed.  Why?  Simply  because  I  have  not 
the  degree  of  power  which  he  had.  Were  I  to  publish 
that  I  am  able  to  perform  achievements  equal  to  those  re- 
corded of  Samson,  and  when  called  upon  to  give  evidence 
of  it,  reply,  that  I  have  a  kind  of  ability,  and  all  that  I  want 
is  another  kind,  equally  indispensable,  would  I  not  there- 
by render  myself  ridiculous  ?  Just  as  ridiculous  do  these 
sage  theologians  make  themselves,  when  they  assert  that 
the  sinner  has  a  natural  ability  to  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel ;  and  is,  therefore,  under  obligation  to  repent  and 
believe,  merely  because  he  possesses  a  Hnd  of  ability, 
while  he  is  yet  destitute  of  another  kind,  which  is  es- 
sentially requisite. 

Take  another  illustration.  An  individual  in  distress 
solicits  your  charity.  You  have  the  disposition  to  relieve 
him,  and  you  have  all  the  intelligence  that  is  necessary ; 
but,  in  searching  your  pockets,  you  find  that  you  have  no 
money.  Now,  although  you  have  two  of  the  kinds  of  power 
which  are  requisite,  moral  and  intellectual,  there  is  one 
kind  which  you  have  not,  and  the  absence  of  that,  renders 
you  wholly  unable.  But  suppose  some  one  in  company 
with  you  should  insist  on  your  giving  money  to  the  indi- 
vidual, or  being  stigmatized  as  unfeeling  and  penurious ; 
and  affirm  that  if  you  had  "  no  sort  of  ability"  you  would 
be  excusable  ;  but  having  "  some  kind  of  ability,"  you 
are  fully  able,  and  under  a  moral  obligation,  to  give  him 
money,  although  you  have  not  a  single  cent  at  your  dis- 
posal, would  you  not  laugh  at  the  absurdity  of  his  reason- 
ing T  Equally  absurd  is  the  doctrine  that  the  sinner  is  able 
to  love  God,  because  he  has  "  a  kind  of  ability,"  called 
natural,  or  any  thing  else,  while  he  is  destitute  of  another 
kind,  without  which  no  man  ever  did,  or  ever  will,  or  ever 
can,  love  God,  and  which  God  gives  to,  and  withholds 
from,  whom  he  pleases.     The  cases  are  precisely  parallel. 

It  is  also  supposed,  that  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  a 


NEW  DlVlNITy — ABILITT,  45 

natural  ability  to  serve  God,  is  equivalent  to  the  assertion 
that  men  are  utterly  unable  to  do  v^fhat  is  required  of  them. 
Hence  the  advocates  of  that  doctrine  exhibit  in  its  support, 
with  great  satisfaction  and  triumph,  those  scriptures  and 
arguments  which  prove  that  God  does  not  demand  of  us 
what  we  are  absolutely  incapable  of  perfonning.  That 
great  summary  of  law,  "  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
strength,  and  with  all  thy  mind,"  is  brought  forward  to 
prove  that  man  has  the  ability  naturally  to  obey  the  divine 
law.  The  opposite  doctrine,  we  are  told,makes  God  atyrant. 
That  this  and  similar  texts,  and  the  reasonings  founded  on 
them,  abundantly  disprove  the  doctrine  that  man  is  wholly 
unable  to  love  and  obey  God,  is  imdeniable.  Exit  they  do 
not  prove  that  he  has  a  natural  ability  to  do  these  things. 
It  is  not  the  case,  that  denying  the  doctrine  of  a  natural 
ability  to  obey  God  involves  the  consequence  that  we  are 
totally  unable  to  obey  him.  Methodism  is  equally  opposed 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  inability  of  man  to  do  any  thing 
toward  his  salvation,  as  held  by  Calvinists  of  the  Old 
School,  and  to  the  doctrine  of  a  natural  ability  to  obey  God, 
as  held  by  those  of  the  New  School,  and  Pelagians  gene- 
rally. These  doctrines  are  equally  distant  from  the  truth. 
We  hold  that  while  no  man  has  naturally  the  ability  to 
repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  the  grace  of  God  is  vouch- 
safed to  every  man  to  enable  him  to  take  the  steps  neces- 
sary to  his  salvation.  When,  therefore,  our  New  School 
brethren  suppose  that  they  have  established  the  doctrine 
by  these  argximents,  they  are  wholly  mistaken.  They 
have  only  proved  man's  ability,  in  opposition  to  the  doc- 
trine of  his  entire  and  absolute  inability.  Whether  that 
ability  is  natural  or  not,  is  a  question  which  remains  to  be 
settled.  They  have  not  advanced  a  step  toward  the  proof 
of  it.  The  searguments  they  have  borrowed  from  the  theo- 
logy of  Methodism  ;  and  while  they  fail  to  establish  their 


46  NEW  DIVINITY- ABILITY. 

doctrine  of  natural  ability,  they  can  easily  be  turned  with 
fatal  effect  against  their  doctrine  of  moral  inability. 

Another  fallacy  resorted  to,  for  the  .purpose  of  proving 
the  doctrine  in  dispute,  consists  in  confounding  power  with 
powers  or  faculties,  and  identifying  the  question — Does 
man  possess  naturally  the  ability  to  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel  ?  with  the  question — Is  he  in  possession  of  all  the 
constitutional  faculties  of  our  nature  ?  Accordingly,  some 
of  their  most  confident  arguments  are  directed  to  the 
object  of  proving  that  man  has  not  lost  any  of  his  con- 
stitutional faculties.  Dr.  Beecher,  in  his  work  entitled 
"  Views  in  Theology,"  written  in  vindication  of  his 
orthodoxy,  remarks,  "  I  commence  with  the  subject  of  free 
agency,  or  the  natural  ability  of  man,  as  the  foundation  of 
obligation  and  moral  government."  This  natural  ability 
he  explains  to  be  "  the  intellectual  and  moral  faculties, 
which  God  has  given  to  man  commensurate  with  his  re- 
quirements ;" — "  the  plenary  powers  of  a  free  agent." — 
p.  67.     His  reasonings  are  based  on  this  definition. 

He  remarks,  '*  That  nothing  has  been  subtracted  by  the 
fall  from  the  powers  of  agency  requisite  to  the  possibility 
of  obedience,  is  strongly  evident  from  the  fact  that  no  one, 
by  the  most  careful  analysis  of  the  mind,  has  ever  been 
able  to  detect  and  name  the  fatal  deficiency.  The  motive 
to  make  such  an  exculpatory  discovery,  and  throw  off 
hated  obligation  and  feared  punishment,  has  been  power- 
ful as  the  terrors  of  eternity,  and  the  effort  as  constant  as 
the  flow  of  ages,  and  urged  with  all  that  talent,  and  inge- 
nuity, and  learning  could  apply,  and  the  wisdom  from  be- 
neath inspire,  to  establish  the  excusable  impotency  of 
man  ;  and  to  this  day  the  effort  has  proved  abortive.  To 
appearance,  the  powers  of  the  mind,  and  the  law  of  God, 
and  the  glorious  gospel,  and  the  providence  of  God,  are, 
as  they  should  be,  to  render  obedience  a  reasonable  ser- 
vice, and  impenitence  and  unbelief  without  excuse ;  and 


NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY,  47 

where,  amid  the  constitutional  powers  of  agency,  the  de- 
fect lies,  has  never  been  discovered ;  what  it  is  has  never 
been  told,  or  that  there  is  any  such  defect  proved." — 
P.  31. 

Mr.  Duffield,  in  his  work  on  regeneration,  says,  "  The 
terms  ability  and  power  may  denote,  either  the  effective 
force  or  energy,  or  the  particular  faculty  or  capacity  for 
exerting  that  force."  In  explaining  natural  ability  he 
adopts  the  latter  sense ;  he  explains  it  to  be  "  the  con- 
stitutional capacities  requisite  to  believe  and  repent." 
In  this  definition  it  is  perceived  at  once  that  the  words 
ability  and  faculties  are  used  as  synonymous,  and  that  the 
"  natural  ability"  is  identified  with  the  constitutional 
faculties  of  our  nature. 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  his  reply  to  that  part  of  the  protest 
against  his  sermon  which  relates  to  the  ability  of  sin- 
ners, says,  "  The  design  of  these  passages  Avas  to  affirm 
that  salvation  was  offered  to  all  men — that  they  were  un- 
der no  compulsory  means — no  physical  force,  to  ruin  them 
— that  they  were  not  under  a  defect  of  any  natural  power  of 
intellect,  judgment,  or  conscience  to  do  this  duty — that  the 
duty  which  God  required  had  been  measured  by  the  na- 
ture of  the  human  faculties — and  that  if  he  went  beyond 
that  limit  it  must  be  unjust." — P.  75. 

Although  Mr.  Hinton  does  not  formally  define  ability  to 
consist  in  the  possession  of  constitutional  faculties,  he  con- 
founds it  with  faculties,  when  it  suits  his  argument.  In 
attempting  to  prove  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  impart 
additional  power  in  regeneration,  he  remarks,  "  Birth  and 
creation,  it  will  be  admitted,  do  involve  the  production  of 
new  powers.  But  when  these  terms  are  applied  to  the 
conversion  of  a  sinner,  we  are  immediately  met  by  the  fact 
that  the  powers  of  moral  action  are  already  in  existence, 
namely,  his  intelligent  faculties.  Here  is  no  room  there- 
fore  for  the  production  of  7iew  powers  ;  and  hence,  of  ne- 


"?8  NEW  DIVINITY— ABILITV. 

cessity,  the  analogy  and  the  force  of  the  metaphor  are 
confined  to  the  production  of  new  action." — -p.  227. 

A  striking  example  of  this  fallacy  is  found  in  a  recent 
English  work,  entitled  "  Lectures  on  Divine  Sovereignty, 
Election,  &c.,  by  George  Payne,  LL.  D."  He  attempts 
to  refute  the  doctrine  that  man  is  indebted  to  supernatural 
influence  for  his  ability  to  keep  the  law  of  God,  and  com- 
plains loudly,  that  neither  the  Rev.  Richard  Watson,  in  his 
Theological  Institutes,  nor  Bishop  Tomline,  defines  the 
term  poiver.  His  "  decided  impression  is,  that  neither  they 
nor  Arminians  in  general  attach  any  definite  meaning  to 
the  tenn.  They  write  as  if  their  conceptions  w^ere  very 
loose  and  indefinite,  and  yet  as  if  they  did  not  suspect  this 
to  be  the  case."  He  tells  his  readers  that  "  these  are  not 
the  times  when  loose  and  ambiguous  statements  can  be 
permitted  to  go  unexamined  and  unsifted."  "  I  can,"  says 
he, "  conceive  of  two  senses  only,  in  which  the  term  power 
'  can  be  used  in  this  connection ;  if  there  are  more  than 
two,  I  shall  consider  myself  indebted  to  any  individual 
who  will  point  them  out.  The  two  senses  of  -which  only 
I  am  at  present  cognizant  are  those  which  have  been  more 
than  once  referred  to,  namely,  disposition  and  physical 
capacity.  When,  therefore,  Mr.  Watson  afl!irms  that  man 
has  lost  both  his  will  and  his  power  to  obey  God,  the  lan- 
guage is,  to  my  apprehension,  equivalent  with  the  decla- 
ration that  he  has  lost  his  disposition  and  physical  capacity 
to  obey  God."  What  Mr.  Payne  means  by  physical  ca- 
pacity, as  distinguished  from  will  or  disposition,  will  be 
made  manifest  as  he  proceeds.  "  I  now  seek  for  informa- 
tion," he  adds,  "  whether,  in  the  judgment  of  the  x\rminian, 
Adam  did  lose  his  physical  capacity  to  obey  his  Creator  ? 
Should  he  reply  in  the  negative,\hcn  I  would  further  inquire, 
Since  the  loss  was  by  hypothesis  more  than  disposition, 
and  yet  was  not  physical  power,  what  is  that  strange  ter' 
tium  quid  between  will  and  physical  power — partaking  of 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  49 

the  properties  of  neither,  or  rather,  perhaps,  being  an  un- 
natural mixture  of  both — which  completes  the  amount  of 
his  loss  1  Will  any  one  attempt  to  explain  it  ?  Is  it  ex- 
plicable ?  Can  it  even  be  conceived  ?  Should  the  reply  be 
in  the  ajjirmative,  should  it  be  said  that  he  lost  physical 
power,  I  would  ask  whether  he  lost  the  whole  of  his 
physical  powers,  or  some  of  them  only.  Had  the  former 
been  the  case,  that  is,  had  he  lost  sensation,  memory,  judg- 
ment, volition,  &c.,  he  must  have  ceased  to  be  a  man;  he 
must  have  sunk  even  below  a  brute.  If  it  be  said  that  he 
lost  some  of  them  only,  I  ask,  which  ?  Was  it  the  under- 
standing, the  memory,  the  judgment,  the  conscience,  &c.? 
Experience  proves  they  all  remain.  Degraded  as  man  is, 
he  has  suffered  no  loss  of  any  physical  power  essential  to 
obedience  ;  for  there  is  nothing  which  God  commands 
him  to  do  which  he  could  not  do  if  he  would."  From 
such  reasoning  Mr.  Payne  concludes  that  man  has  power 
to  obey  the  gospel,  without  supernatural  influence,  and 
vauntingly  remarks,  with  reference  to  his  opponents,  that 
"  Ten  thousand  absurdities  have  been  uttered  on  this  sub- 
ject, by  those  who  have  theological  words  without  theo- 
logical ideas,  whose  creed  is  a  creed  of  symbols  rather 
than  things." — pp.  76,  77. 

It  is  evident  from  these  passages,  that  those  who  deny 
the  Kioctrine  of  natural  ability  to  do  what  God  requires  as 
indispensable  to  salvation,  are  placed  by  its  advocates  in 
the  attitude  of  denying  that  fallen  man  is  in  possession  of 
all  the  constitutional  faculties  of  his  nature.  It  is  affirmed 
again  and  again,  in  defence  of  this  doctrine,  that  the  moral 
ability,  or  regeneration,  imparts  no  new  faculty.  It  is 
true,  they  do  not  always  abide  by  this  definition.  They 
do  not  always  use  the  phrase,  natural  ability,  in  this  sense. 
It  is  frequently  used  in  the  popular  sense  ;  and  on  their 
dexterity  in  shifting  from  one  sense  to  another  depends 
the  success  of  the  contrivance. 

3 


50  NEW  DIVINITY ABILIfV. 

But  was  ever  philosophy,  or  common  sense,  more  Avan- 
tonly  outraged  than  by  confounding  ability  to  perforin  a 
certain  act,  or  series  of  acts,  with  constitutional  powers  or 
faculties  ?  May  not  the  most  active  and  efficient  man  in 
the  country,  in  all  the  various  departments  of  human  en- 
terprise, be  so  reduced  by  sickness  as  to  be  utterly  unable 
to  rise  from  his  bed,  or  even  to  speak  audibly  ?  But  has 
he  lost  a  constitutional  faculty  ?  Is  it  the  business  of  the 
physician  or  the  nurse  to  restore  a  constitutional  faculty  ? 
Has  he  not,  in  his  disabled  condition,  all  the  powers  or  facul- 
ties he  ever  had  ?  And  yet,  according  to  these  philosophic 
theologians,  he  has  a  natural  ability  to  perform  these  or  any 
other  acts  that  come  within  the  compass  of  human  ability, 
because  he  has  all  the  faculties  of  a  man.  This  boasted 
natural  ability  turns  out,  therefore,  to  be  no  ability  at  all. 

And  now  let  us  see  if  the  moral  ability,  or  disposition, 
"will  help  the  invalid  out  of  his  difficulty.  He  has  the  will. 
He  desires  to  speak.  He  makes  repeated  and  resolute 
efforts  to  speak  and  rise  from  his  couch,  plainly  showing 
that  there  is  no  inability  of  will — that  he  possesses  the 
moral  as  well  as  the  physical  ability,  and  yet  he  cannot. 
With  all  this  parade  of  metaphysical  learning  and  discri 
mination,  the  true  idea  of  ability  is  wholly  overlooked.  It 
is  fairly  excluded  by  the  definitions  of  both  kinds  of  ability. 
It  does  not  reside  in  the  natural  ability.  It  does  not  reside 
in  the  moral  ability,  or  disposition.  It  falls  down,  between 
them,  into  the  safercustody  of  common  sense  and  Methodism. 

Look,  for  a  moment,  at  some  of  the  consequences  of  this 
definition  of  ability  !  If  the  possession  of  all  the  constitu- 
tional faculties  of  human  nature,  constitutes  ability  to  per- 
form any  given  act  which  a  human  being  may  possibly 
perform,  it  will  follow,  inevitably,  either  that  I  have  power 
to  perform  feats  of  strength  equal  to  those  for  which  Go- 
liath and  Samson  were  celebrated,  or  that  I  am  deficient 
in  constitutional  faculties.     It  will  follow,  either  that  an 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  51 

infant  is  able  to  do  all  that  the  most  able  man  can  do,  or 
that  it  is  destitute  of  one  or  more  of  the  constitutional 
faculties  of  our  nature. 

Again,  let  us  try  the  application  of  this  definition  of 
ability  to  the  purpose  of  laying  the  foundation  of  moral 
accountability,  and  vindicating  the  divine  government  in 
the  punishment  of  the  impenitent :  for  this  is  one  of  the 
important  uses  assigned  it.  The  possession  of  the  facul- 
ties of  our  nature  is  supposed  to  constitute  a  natural  ability, 
and  that  is  considered  as  the  basis  of  moral  obligation,  and 
sufficient  to  justify  Jehovah  in  the  everlasting  pvmishment 
of  the  impenitent  and  unbelieving.  From  these  premises 
it  is  as  clearly  deducible  that  infants  are  naturally  able  to 
do  all  that  may  be  required  of  fuU-gTOwn  men  and  women ; 
that  they  have  a  natural  ability  to  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel,  and  are  therefore  justly  accountable  for  the  per- 
formance of  these  exercises,  and  justly  punishable,  and 
actually  liable  to  punishment,  for  the  nonperformance  of 
them.  To  deny  that  infants  possess  all  the  constitutional 
faculties  of  our  nature  would  imply  that  these  faculties 
may  be  acquired  by  growth  or  education,  which  would  be 
the  same  as  to  deny  that  they  are  constitutional. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  answer  Mr.  Payne's  significant 
demand  for  the  "  tertium  quid"  which  he  so  humorously 
describes.  It  is  power  itself.  The  very  thing  which  he 
attempts  to  define,  but  entirely  overlooks.  Whatever  may 
be  his  success  on  other  occasions,  he  has,  in  this  instance, 
signally  failed  to  sustain  his  lofty  pretensions  to  superior 
precision.  His  arguments  have  been  directed  to  prove 
what  every  Arminian  would  cheerfully  admit,  and  what, 
we  presume,  no  one  of  any  creed  would  deny  ;  so  that  he 
has  dealt  his  giant  blows  on  an  imaginary  foe.  The 
"  theological  idea"  which  he  attaches  to  the  term  power,  is 
foreign  to  the  subject  under  consideration  ;  and  he  has  yet 
before  him  the  task  of  proving  that  the  sinner  ha«  power, 


53  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITV. 

as  the  people  generally  understand  the  term,  to  repent  and 
believe,  without  the  assistance  of  grace. 

The  advocates  of  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  fre 
quently  confound  it  with  the  doctrine  oifree  agency.  This 
is  done  by  Dr.  Beecher.  He  defines  it,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  consist  in  "  the  plenary  powers  of  a  free  agent ;"  and 
throughout  his  argument  on  this  subject  treats  these  two 
questions  as  identical.  "  I  commence  with  the  subject 
of  free  agency,  or  the  natural  ability  of  man,  as  the  found- 
ation of  obligation,  &c.,"  is  the  language  with  which  he 
opens  his  defence. — p.  15.  Again  he  says,  "There  is 
not  a  dispute  about  doctrine,  at  this  time,  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  which  does  not  originate  in  discrepant 
opinions  respecting  the  created  constitutional  powers  of 
man  as  a  free  agent,  and  the  grounds  of  moral  obligation 
and  personal  accountability."  Again  :  "  Nothing  is  appa- 
rent in  the  nature  of  the  fall  from  which  to  infer  necessa- 
rily the  destruction  of  the  constitutional  powers  of  free 
agency  in  Adam  or  his  posterity." — p.  29.  We  find 
another  example  of  this  error  in  a  tract  entitled  "  Man  a 
Free  Agent  without  the  Aids  of  Divine  Grace," 
which  is  considered  one  of  the  ablest  arguments  extant, 
against  the  Arminian  views  of  ability.  The  opponents 
of  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  are  thus  placed  in  the 
position  of  denying  the  doctrine  of  free  agency,  while  its 
advocates  avail  themselves  of  the  powerful  and  unanswer- 
able arguments  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  free  agency, 
and  set  them  down  as  so  much  in  favour  of  the  doctrine 
of  natural  ability.  And  if  the  arguments  which  belong  to 
one  of  these  doctrines  were  equally  applicable  to  both, 
they  would  acquire  an  easy  triumph.  But  they  are  not. 
The  doctrines  are  not  the  same.  The  arguments  which 
apply  to  the  one  do  not  apply  to  the  other. 

The  question  now  to  be  settled  is  not  whether  man  is  a 
free  agent,  but  whether  man,  who  is  unquestionably  a  free 


NBW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  ^J^ 

agent,  is  naturally  able — able  without  grace  to  assist  him, 
to  perforin  certain  prescribed  exercises.  All  men  are  free 
agents,  and  yet  some  men  can  perform  acts  far  beyond  the 
utmost  ability  of  others.  Because  the  school-boy  is  a  free 
agent,  is  he  therefore  able  to  do  whatever  his  tutor  or  his 
parents  can  do  ?  If  it  be  essential  to  free  agency  to  be 
naturally  able  to  do  whatever  is  possible  to  be  done,  God 
is  the  only  free  agent  in  the  universe. 

It  would  indeed  be  a  marvellous  affair,  if  Calvinism  and 
Methodism  should  so  change  ground,  that  the  latter  should 
deny  the  doctrine  of  free  agency,  and  the  former  stand  up 
in  defence  of  it.  But  this  has  not  been  done.  This  is 
not  the  state  of  the  controversy.  Calvinism  has  denied  it. 
Methodism  never  did.  We  have  contended  for  it  from  the 
beginning,  and  borne  no  little  reproach  on  that  account. 
"We  have  as  long  and  as  constantly  opposed  the  Pelagian 
doctrine  of  natural  ability. 

A  little  further  explanation  will  lay  the  matter  fairly 
open.  Calvinists,  pressed  by  the  arguments  of  their  op- 
ponents against  the  doctrine  of  the  foreordination,  and  con- 
sequent necessity,  of  every  event  that  comes  to  pass,  have 
been  compelled  to  admit  that  man  is  a  free  agent,  in  order 
to  lay  the  basis  of  human  accountability,  and  justify  re- 
wards and  punishments.  The  task  has  then  devolved 
upon  them  of  reconciling  their  doctrine  of  predestination 
with  man's  free  agency.  In  this  field  they  have  had  to 
labour  with  distressing,  exhausting  toil.  They  have  con- 
trived, however,  a  theory,  or  perhaps  a  variety  of  theories, 
which,  in  their  estimation,  bring  these  tenets  to  an  agree- 
ment. But,  after  all,  their  free  agency  is  one  which  can 
do  nothing  but  what  was  preordained  from  all  eternity,  and 
is  brought  about  by  the  providence  of  God,  working  by  a 
very  complicate,  but  effective  machinery  of  influence,  ope- 
rating, however,  as  they  say,  in  accordance  with  the  laws 
of  mind." 


64  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

But  when  they  have  got  through  the  task  of  reconciling 
the  predestination  of  all  events  with  man's  free  agency, 
the  patient  and  assiduous  employment  of  all  their  learning 
and  ingenuity  is  demanded,  in  order  to  reconcile  the 
election  of  a  definite  number  of  men  to  eternal  life,  to 
the  exclusion  of  all  the  rest,  and  the  particular  and  ex- 
clusive redemption,  by  Christ,  of  the  elect,  with  the  offers 
of  salvation  to  all  men,  and  the  obligation  of  all  men  to 
repent  and  believe  the  gospel.  For,  admitting  that  all  men 
are  free  agents,  what  chance  for  salvation  have  those  for 
whose  salvation  God  has  made  no  provision,  and  whose 
exclusion  from  saving  mercy  he  has  decreed  ?  Why  offer 
salvation  to  those  for  whom  it  is  not  intended,  and  who 
have  not  power  to  accept  it  ?  It  is  for  the  purpose  of 
reconciling  these  doctrines,  as  we  have  shown,  that  the 
distinction  of  ability  into  natural  and  moral  is  resorted  to ; 
and  from  this  distinction,  maintained  for  this  purpose,  arises 
the  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability  of  all  men  to  repent  and 
believe. 

Shall  we  inquire  into  the  nature  of  the  free  agency  for 
which  they  contend  1  It  is  defined,  by  the  author  of  the 
tract,  to  consist  "  in  the  faculties  of  understanding,  con- 
science, and  will."  He  argues,  "  We  know,  therefore, 
that  man  did  not  lose  his  free  agency  in  Adam,  unless  he 
ceased  to  be  man  ;  for  understanding,  conscience,  and  will, 
which  make  him  a  free  agent,  are  constituent  parts  of  his 
nature,  &c."  Again :  "  The  only  question  is,  are  these 
faculties,  understanding,  conscience,  and  will,  produced  by 
supernatural  grace  ?  Do  they  pertain  to  man,  as  man ;  or 
are  they  supernatural  appendages  ?"  But  who,  we  ask, 
ever  denied,  or  made  it  necessary  to  prove,  such  a  free 
agency  as  this  1  Who  ever  supposed  such  a  free  agency 
to  be  imparted  by  "  supernatural  grace  ?"  Were  an  Armi- 
nian  to  forget  himself  so  far  as  to  deny  that  man  is  a  free 
agent,  or  assert  that  he  is  dependent  for  his  free  agency 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  55 

on  the  influence  of  grace,  he  would  not  mean  that  man  is 
destitute  of  "  understanding,  conscience,  and  will,"  or  that 
he  has  these  faculties  through  grace ;  but  that  he  has  not 
power  to  exercise  these  faculties  otherwise  than  he  does,  or 
that  he  depends  on  grace  for  that  power.  And  such  a  po- 
sition would  be  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  the  arguments 
of  the  tract.  It  would  be  wholly  different  from  that  against 
which  they  are  directed.  They  merely  prove  that  man 
possesses  all  his  constitutional  faculties,  without  the  assist- 
ance of  grace.  But  why  did  not  this  Avriter  prove  that  man 
is  a  free  agent  without  grace,  in  the  Arminian  sense  of 
the  term  ?  Because  Calvinism  does  not  recognise  man  as 
a  free  agent  in  that  sense.  While  it  accords  to  him  a 
free  agency  which  consists  merely  in  the  possession  of 
faculties,  it  teaches  that  every  exercise  of  these  faculties 
is  predetermined  and  brought  about  by  God. 

The  ulterior  design  of  this  argument  is  to  prove  that 
free  agency,  without  grace,  involves  ability  to  do,  without 
grace,  whatever  is  necessary  to  salvation.  The  writer 
says,  "  The  power  or  faculty  which  chooses  evil  and 
which  chooses  good,  is  the  same  power  differently  used. 
There  can  be  no  sin  in  choosing  evil  unless  there  be  power 
to  choose  good ;  or  what  is  the  same  thing  in  an  account- 
able being,  power  to  avoid  choosing  evil."  Again  :  "  But 
man's  ability  and  free  agency  are  coextensive :  and  if  he 
is  responsible  so  far,  and  so  far  only,  as  he  has  ability, 
then  so  far,  and  so  far  only,  is  he  a  free  agent."  But  the 
amount  of  the  ability,  which  this  demonstration  contem- 
plates, will  be  apparent,  when  his  definition  of  power  is 
taken  into  the  account.  He  says,  in  a  note,  "  The  writer 
would  acquaint  the  reader,  that  whenever  he  ascribes 
power  or  ability  to  sinful  man  to  obey  God,  he  speaks 
simply  of  the  faculties  which  are  here  spoken  of,  as  con- 
stituting him  a  free  agent."  We  are  thus  seasonably  cau- 
tioned against  supposing  that  he  ascribes  to  the  sinner 


56  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

power  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term — in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  usually  understood.  He  means  by  power, 
merely  the  possession  of  faculties.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
accountability,  on  his  scheme,  that  man  should  be  able  to 
exercise  his  faculties  as  is  required  of  him,  but  merely 
that  he  possess  the  faculties  themselves.  We  ask,  in 
the  language  of  Job,  and  with  a  somewhat  similar  feeling, 
"  What  doth  this  arguing  reprove  ?"  It  is  doubtless  in- 
tended to  leave  the  impression,  that  man  is  a  free  agent, 
without  grace,  in  the  popular  and  proper  sense  of  the  term, 
and  that  free  agency  includes  the  power,  strictly  speaking, 
to  do,  without  grace,  whatever  is  necessary  to  salvation ; 
but  between  such  a  conclusion,  and  the  arguments  of  the 
tract,  there  is  obviously  no  logical  connection  whatever. 

But,  apart  from  the  sophistries  of  this  writer,  it  may  be 
both  entertaining  and  profitable  to  inquire,  if  it  is,  in  fact, 
essential  to  free  agency  to  be  able  to  comply  with  the 
terms  of  salvation.  We  think  it  is  not.  A  being  may  be 
able  to  act  otherwise  than  he  does,  in  a  great  variety  of 
instances,  and  yet  be  unable  to  pursue  a  certain  course  of 
action,  necessary  to  the  attainment  of  a  certain  end.  As 
has  already  been  said,  it  is  not  necessary  to  free  agency, 
to  be  able  to  do  whatever  is  possible  to  be  done.  It  is  no 
more  necessary  to  free  agency,  in  the  abstract,  to  be  able 
to  repent  of  sin,  and  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  our 
neighbour  as  ourselves,  or  perform  any  other  specific  ex- 
ercises, than  it  is  to  be  able  to  fly,  or  breathe  as  freely  in 
the  water  as  in  the  open  air.  The  range  of  a  man's  free- 
dom may  be  very  much  circumscribed  without  destroying 
his  free  agency.  Imprison  him,  and  he  is  still  a  free 
agent.  Chain  him  to  the  floor  of  his  prison,  and  he  has 
still,  to  some  extent,  freedom  of  thought  and  action.  So 
the  fall  may  have  greatly  restricted  our  liberty ;  it  may 
have  destroyed  our  freedom  of  will,  in  respect  to  many 
things,  without  destroying  our  free  agency  itself.    The 


\ 


NEW  BlVlNll'V-— ABILlfV.  '5Y 

attribute  nisy  still  remain,  though  its  operations  be  con- 
fined within  a  narrow  sphere.  And  this,  so  far  as  we  un- 
derstand it,  is  the  doctrine  of  Arminianism.  It  does  not 
teach  that  the  fall  has  destroyed  man's  power  of  acting, 
in  any  instance,  otherwise  than  he  does  act ;  but  of  per- 
forming a  certain  class  of  actions.  The  langiiage  of  our 
Church  on  the  subject  is,  "  The  condition  of  man  after  the 
fall  of  Adam  is  such,  that  he  cannot  prepare  himself,  by 
his  own  natural  strength  and  works,  to  faith  and  calling 
upon  God;  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do  good  works, 
pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without  the  grace  of  God 
by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we  may  have  a  good  will,  and 
working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good  will." 

Whatever  difficulties  may  attach  to  this  theory,  we  cer- 
tainly shall  not  seek  to  relieve  ourselves  of  them  by  adopt- 
ing that  which  is  presented  by  modern  Calvinism.  For 
if  the  whole  of  man's  power  consists  merely  in  the  pos- 
session of  constitutional  faculties,  and  every  exercise  of 
these  faculties  was  foreordained  by  God,  and  is  brought 
about  by  his  influence,  as  Calvinists  hold,  we  should  de- 
spair of  being  able  to  prove  him  a  free  agent,  either  with 
or  without  grace. 

The  argument  of  our  opponents  frequently  proceeds  on 
the  assumption,  that  to  deny  that  fallen  man  possesses  a 
natural  ability  to  obey  the  gospel,  involves  the  conse 
quence,  that  he  has  "  no  natural  power."  The  fallacy  of 
this  is  glaring.  To  deny,  without  any  qualification,  that 
man  has  natural  ability,  would  be  absurd  indeed.  But 
this  is  not  the  question.  We  deny  that  he  possesses  a 
natural  ability  to  perform  those  specific  exercises  which 
God  requires,  in  order  to  his  salvation.  Every  living 
man  is  supposed  to  have  natural  abihty  to  do  somethings 
but  that  does  not  imply  a  natural  ability  to  do  every  thing. 
Samson  had  natural  ability  when,  shorn  of  his  extraordi- 
nary strength,  he  went  but  as  another  man ;  but  that  does 

3* 


58  NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY- 

not  prove  that  the  strength  by  which  he  carried  off  the 
gates  of  Gaza  was  natural  to  him.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
for  us  to  maintain  that  fallen  man  has  not  power,  naturally, 
to  do,  in  many  instances,  what  may  be  required  of  him, 
in  preference  to  what  he  actually  does.  Take  the  mur- 
derer, for  instance,  or  the  man  who  has  defrauded  the 
government, — we  need  not  assume  the  ground,  that  grace 
was  necessary  to  enable  these  men  to  have  acted  differ- 
ently, in  these  respects,  from  what  they  are  supposed  to 
have  done.  And  certainly  the  law  of  God  required  them 
to  act  differently.  The  law  of  God  requires  the  right  use 
of  the  power  we  possess  naturally,  as  well  as  that  imparted 
by  divine  influence.  But  a  very  partial  conformity  to  the 
law  in  some  instances,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the 
performance  of  whatever  the  law  demands.  To  decline 
murder,  or  robbery,  or  adultery,  is  not  sufficient  to  make 
a  man  a  Christian.  The  question,  therefore,  returns  un- 
settled,— Has  man,  without  gracious  influence  assisting 
him,  the  power  to  do  whatever  is  indispensable  to  his 
salvation  ? 

It  is  also  assumed  that  those  scriptures  which  charge 
on  sinners  an  unwillingness  to  come  to  Christ,  prove  that 
they  possess  naturally  the  ability  which  is  necessary. 
These  texts  certainly  prove  what  they  inculcate,  but  they 
neither  affirm  nor  imply  any  thing  respecting  the  source  of 
the  power  by  which  those  who  ivill  to  obey  the  claims  of 
duty,  carry  their  purposes  into  execution.  And  yet  this 
is  the  point  in  dispute.  They  are  perfectly  consistent 
with  the  doctrine,  that  for  the  power  to  take  the  first,  and 
each  successive  step,  the  sinner  is  indebted  to  divine  in- 
fluence— a  doctrine  which,  in  other  parts  of  the  Scriptures, 
is  positively  asserted.  We  suppose  that  had  the  man  with 
the  withered  hand  refused  to  stretch  it  forth,  he  would 
have  defeated  the  kind  intentions  of  the  Saviour.  But 
does  this  fact  prove  that  he  had  power  to  stretch  it  forth 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  59 

independently  of  the  power  of  Christ  ?  Neither  does  the 
fact,  that  the  unwillingness  of  sinners  to  come  to  Christ 
prevents  their  salvation,  prove  that  they  have  power  to 
come  to  Christ  unaided  by  the  Spirit. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ABILITY    CONTINUED. 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  the  question  at  issue  is 
not,  whether  man  possesses  one  or  more  of  the  different 
kinds  of  ability,  into  which  power  may  be  distinguished  ; 
or  whether  he  is,  without  grace,  wholly  destitute  of  natu- 
ral power  ;  or  whether  he  can,  in  any  instance,  act  other- 
wise than  he  does,  without  divine  influence  ;  or  whether 
he  possesses  all  the  constitutional  faculties  of  human  na- 
ture ;  or  whether  he  is  a  free  agent.  Nor  is  it,  whether 
he  actually  possesses  the  ability  requisite  to  the  observ- 
ance of  the  divine  law;  but  Avhether,  admitting  that  he 
possesses  the  requisite  ability,  does  he  possess  it  naturally 
and  independently  of  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
We  think  that  we  have  shown  unanswerably  that  he  does 
not. 

But  the  argaunents  of  our  opponents  are  not  all  defen- 
sive. They  have  made  resolute  aggressions  on  the.Ar- 
minian  doctrine.  It  is  argued,  that,  as  no  man  can  be 
responsible  for  the  nonperformance  of  what  is  beyond  his 
ability, — as  total  inability  is  incompatible  with  moral  obli- 
gation,— to  teach  that  grace  is  necessary  to  impart  ability 
to  keep  the  law  of  God,  is  to  make  grace  necessary  to 
accountability.  This  objection  is  pushed  out  to  remoter 
consequences  ;  and  with  the  view  of  overwhelming  Ar- 
minianism  with  absurdities,  we  are  told,  that,  according 
to  our  doctrine,  man  is  not  only  made  a  responsible  being 


60  NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY. 

by  grace,  but  also  becomes  punishable  by  grace,  and,  of 
course,  if  damned,  is  damned  by  grace,  so  that  the  grace  of 
the  Arminian  turns  out  to  be  a  curse  rather  than  a  blessing 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  answering  this  objection,  to  deny 
that  man  is  responsible  in  proportion  to  his  ability.  In- 
deed the  foundation  of  this  objection  has,  in  our  estima- 
tion, already  been  swept  away.  It  evidently  assumes,  that 
the  doctrine  that  man  has  not  power,  without  gracious  aid, 
to  do  whatever  is  required  of  him,  is  equivalent  to  the  as- 
sertion that  he  has  no  power  whatever  without  grace — no 
natural  ability.  This  does  not  follow.  We  might  be  able 
to  act  differently  from  what  we  do,  without  grace,  and  yet 
be  unable  to  perform  those  exercises  with  which  God  has 
seen  proper  to  connect  our  salvation.  An  inability  to  do 
one  thing,  may  not  imply  an  inability  to  do  another.  Had 
not  God  seen  proper  to  require  of  man  more  than  he  has 
power  naturally  to  perform,  and  to  empower  him  to  meet 
those  requirements,  by  supernatural  influence,  he  might 
still  have  constituted  him  a  responsible  being,  by  bringing 
down  the  exactions  of  his  government  to  a  level  with  his 
natural  ability.  The  law  of  God  requires,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  that  all  the  power  we  possess  should  be  ap- 
propriately exerted,  whether  that  poAver  be  natural  or 
supernatural.  So  that  grace  may  not  be  necessary  to  con- 
stitute man  a  responsible  being,  although  it  greatly  affects 
the  degree  of  his  responsibility.  He  may  be  responsible, 
and  yet  not  responsible  for  that  which  exceeds  his  ability. 

But  admitting,  for  argument  sake,  that  our  theory  does 
make  man's  accountability  to  depend  wholly  on  power 
supernaturally  imparted,  the  objection  alleged  against  it, 
on  this  ground,  may  be  shown  to  be  wholly  imaginary. 

That  power  and  advantages  affect  obligations  and  re- 
sponsibilities cannot  be  denied.  This  principle  is  seen 
to  operate  on  various  orders  of  animated  being.  For  in- 
stance, a  man  has  a  right  to  require  service  of  the  inferior 


NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY.  61 

animals.  But  he  cannot  justly  require  of  his  dog  the 
services  which  he  may  justly  require  of  his  horse.  The 
reason  is  obvious.  He  may,  for  the  same  reason,  be 
chargeable  with  cruelty  in  exacting  of  one  of  his  horses, 
the  services  he  might  with  perfect  humanity  require  of 
another,  on  account  of  the  difference  between  them  in 
respect  to  swiftness  or  strength.  It  will  be  readily  ad- 
mitted, that  the  responsibilities  of  man  are  very  differ- 
ent from  those  of  brutes.  God,  by  conferring  on  him 
reason,  has  made  him  subject  to  laws  and  retributions, 
which  are  utterly  inapplicable  to  them. 

And,  dropping  the  comparison  between  men  and  inferior 
creatures,  the  responsibilities  of  men  are  found  to  vary, 
on  this  very  principle.  Here  is  an  idiot ;  has  he  the  same 
responsibility  with  the  man  of  sound  mind  1  And  among 
those  in  possession  of  reason  there  is  a  wide  difference 
as  to  accountability.  The  man  who  has  been  denied  the 
advantages  of  education,  and  is,  moreover,  doomed  to 
poverty  and  sickness,  differs  widely  in  this  respect  from 
the  man  who  possesses  the  advantages  of  property,  and 
health,  and  learning. 

Now,  what  is  that  doctrine  against  which  this  objection 
is  urged  1  It  is  this,  that  God  has  seen  fit,  for  the  superior 
happiness  of  man,  and  his  ov/n  glory,  instead  of  bringing 
down  the  requirements  of  his  law  to  the  natural  ability  of 
fallen  and  depraved  man,  to  require  more  of  him  than  he 
is  naturally  able  to  perform,  and  to  make  up  the  deficiency 
of  power  by  supernatural  influence.  That  this  influence, 
and  the  power  it  imparts,  increase  our  responsibilities, 
and  affect  the  retributive  awards  of  divine  justice,  we  not 
only  admit,  but  freely  and  emphatically  assert.  But  this 
is  a  most  equitable  and  universal  principle  of  government.' 
The  objection  is  therefore  wholly  baseless. 

But  if  the  objector  still  insists  upon  it,  let  him  be  warned 
of  the  position  in  which  he  places  himself.     He  must 


62  NEW  DIVINITY — ABILITY. 

either  deny  that  responsibility  is  graduated  on  this  prin- 
ciple, and  hold  that  God  may  justly  require  of  a  brute  all 
that  he  requires  of  a  man* — of  an  idiot,  all  that  he  requires 
of  one  possessed  of  sound  intelligence  ;  or  that,  as  horses 
and  idiots  are  not  morally  accountable,  nor  capable  of  sin- 
ning against  him,  nor  liable  to  damnation,  the  bestowment 
of  those  qualifications  which  make  the  difference  in  re- 
sponsibility, and  render  liable  to  the  awful  punishments 
of  hell,  is  a  curse  and  not  a  blessing.  To  be  consistent, 
he  must  deny  that  these  superior  qualifications  are  bless- 
ings, or  swallow  the  absurdities  which  he  attempts  to  force 
upon  us,  namely,  that  man  is  made  a  sinner  by  the  divine 
blessing,  is  made  punishable  by  the  divine  blessing,  and 
is  damned  by  the  divine  blessing. 

The  principle  of  the  objection  is,  that  an  acquisition,  to 
be  a  blessing,  or  of  grace,  must  involve  no  additional  re- 
sponsibility. Its  practical  bearing  is,  that  there  would  be 
no  grace  in  saving  a  drowning  man ;  in  opening  the  eyes 
,of  the  blind  ;  in  substituting  the  light  and  order  of  reason 
for  the  darkness  and  confusion  of  insanity ;  or  in  sending 
the  gospel  to  the  heathen,  imless  it  were  ascertained  that 
these  acts  would  not  impose  increased  responsibility. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  rock  of  offence,  which  the  ob- 
jector has  raised  against  us,  falls  back  upon  himself,  "and 
grinds  him  to  powder."  It  would  seem  as  though  some 
theologists  were  willing  to  borrow  arguments  from  infi- 
delity itself,  for  the  purpose  of  discrediting  Arminianism ; 
and  are  determined  to  destroy  it,  even  if,  for  that  purpose, 
they  must  undermine  the  whole  fabric  of  Christianity. 

Another  objection  is,  that,  inasmuch  as  justice  requires 
that  power  should  be  commensurate  with  responsibility, 
there  is  a  contradiction' in  saying,  that  the  power  for  the 
exercise  of  which  we  are  responsible,  is  of  grace.  It  is 
thus  presented  by  Mr.  Finney  :  "  This  giving  the  sinner 
power,  by  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  obey  God,  is  what 


\ 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  63 

the  Arminians  call  a  gracious  ability,  which  terms  are  a 
manifest  absurdity.  What  is  grace  1  It  is  undeserved 
favour  ;  something  to  which  we  have  no  claim  in  justice  ; 
that  which  may  be  withheld  without  injustice.  If  this  is 
a  true  definition,  it  is  plain  that  a  gracious  abihty  to  do 
our  duty  is  absurd.  It  is  a  dictate  of  reason,  of  conscience, 
of  common  sense,  and  of  our  natural  sense  of  justice,  that 
if  God  require  of  us  the  performance  of  any  duty  or  act, 
he  is  bound  in  justice  to  give  us  power  to  obey ;  that  is, 
he  must  give  us  the  faculties  and  strength  to  perform  the 
act.  But  if  justice  require  it,  why  call  it  a  gracious 
ability  ?  Natural  ability  to  do  our  duty  cannot  be  a  gra- 
cious ability.  To  call  it  so  is  to  confound  grace  and  jus- 
tice as  meaning  the  same  thing." — Sermons,  p.  25. 

This  argument  depends  for  its  plausibility  on  the  m.ean- 
ing  which  those  who  employ  it  choose  to  attach  to  the 
term  grace.  That  it  signifies  favour  is  undeniable ;  but 
this  is  not  the  only  sense  in  which  it  is  used.  It  also  sig-, 
nifies  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart ;  and! 
we  can  hardly  suppose  that  it  did  not  occur  to  Mr.  F.,  that'' 
this  might  be  the  sense  in  which  Arminians  use  it  in 
this  connection.  But  the  recognition  of  this  fact  would 
have  spoiled  his  argument.  It  is  a  matter  of  indifTerence 
to  us,  so  far  as  the  doctrine  under  consideration  is  con- 
cerned, whether  the  spiritual  influence,  which  we  afiirm 
to  be  necessary,  be  called  grace  or  justice — whether  the 
ability  imparted  be  called  gracious  ability  or  equitable 
ability.  The  truth  still  remains,  that  to  this  influence 
man  is  indebted  for  his  ability  to  obey  the  gospel.  Thus 
easily,  as  we  think,  is  this  boastful  argument  destroyed ; 
it  is  a  mere  play  upon  terms.  The  communication  of  the 
requisite  power  may  be  both  of  grace  and  justice,  without 
confounding  the  meaning  of  the  terms.  Whether  the 
power  is  of  grace,  in  the  sense  of  favour  or  not,  is  a  dis- 
tinct question. 


64  NEW  PIVTNITY — ABILITY. 

And  even  if  the  term  grace  be  taken  in  the  latter  sense, 
there  will  be  no  contradiction  in  supposing  that  the  power 
it  imparts  is,  at  the  same  time,  of  justice.  A  work  may 
be  commenced  as  a  favour,  strictly,  which  justice  may  re- 
quire to  be  carried  out.  The  whole  plan  of  salvation  had 
its  origin  in  grace,  and  grace  will  lead  on  to  its  consum- 
mation ;  and  yet  it  might  not  be  consistent  with  justice  to 
arrest  it  midway,  repeal  all  its  provisions,  and  suffer  the 
wicked  and  the  just  to  be  blended  in  one  common  doom. 
This  point  is  capable  of  varied  and  almost  endless 
illustration.  Dr.  Fisk  has  justly  said,  "  If  a  physician 
should  cut  off  the  limb  of  a  poor  man,  to  save  his  life,  is 
he  not  bound  in  justice,  after  he  has  commenced  the  ope- 
ration, to  take  up  the  arteries,  and  save  the  rhan  from  dy- 
ing by  the  operation  ?"  And  yet  "  the  man  on  whom  the 
surgeon  operates  maybe  poor  and  perverse,"  and  the  ope- 
ration undertaken  solely  as  an  act  of  grace. 

A  writer  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  in  an  elaborate 
article  on  the  subject  of  human  ability,  objects  to  the  Ar- 
minian  theory,  that  it  makes  the  power  by  which  obe- 
dience is  rendered  to  God,  "  not  human,  but  divine  power," 
and  charges  on  it  these  consequences : — "  The  sinner  loving 
God  is  God  loving  himself,  and  the  sinner  repenting  of 
sin  is  God  repenting  of  sin."  It  would  not  be  paying  a 
very  high  compliment  to  the  intelligence  of  his  readers  to 
suppose  them  converted  to  his  views,  or  their  previous 
faith  in  them  strengthened,  by  the  argument  by  which  he 
attempts  to  fasten  these  absurdities  on  Arminianism.  It 
is  vitiated  throughout  by  the  gross  fallacy  of  confounding 
faculties  or  attributes,  with  the  power  or  energy  by  which 
they  are  exerted.  He  writes,  "  Love  to  God,  repentance 
for  sin,  faith  in  the  Saviour,  are  and  must  be  the  sinner's 
own  acts  or  exercises,  that  is,  his  oion  powers  or  faculties, 
exercised  in  these  forms.     The  proximate  powers  in  exer- 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  65 

cise,  must  be  his  own  subjective  mental  powers,  or  the  acts 
cannot  be  his  own  acts." 

Now  there  is  no  controversy  as  to  whether  man  serves 
God  with  his  own  facuUies  or  the  attributes  of  the  Deity 
The  question  is,  Does  man  possess  the  energy — the  power 
strictly — to  exercise  these  powers  as  the  gospel  requires, 
without  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  And  yet  this 
writer  would  charge  us  with  consequences  which  presup- 
pose an  assertion,  that  man  depends  on  grace  for  the 
necessary  constitutional  faculties. 

But,  apart  from  the  meager  and  absurd  philosophy  of 
New  Divinity,  it  may  be  supposed  that  the  suggestion,  that, 
according  to  our  theory,  man  obeys  God  by  divine,  and 
not  human  power,  contains  a  real  difficulty.  That  the 
power  in  question  is  divine,  we  are  not  concerned  to  deny, 
and  yet  it  is  as  certainly  human.  Whence,  we  ask,  did 
Adam  derive  his  physical  power  in  creation  ?  Was  it  not 
directly  from  God  ?  And  was  it  less  his  own  personal 
power  because  thus  imparted  ?  Could  not  God  have  im- 
parted additional  power  to  Adam  at  any  subsequent  period, 
and  made  it  as  much  his  power  as  that  imparted  in  crea- 
tion 1  If,  then,  he  should  see  proper  to  impart,  by  gracious 
influences,  additional  strength  to  him,  is  there  any  more 
inconsistency  in  calling  it  human  power,  than  there  would 
have  been  if  it  had  been  imparted  at  first  1  Surely  not. 
And  the  power  imparted  to  us  by  grace  is  as  much  ours 
as  the  power  imparted  to  Adam  in  creation  was  his.  Its 
exercise  depends  equally,  in  both  cases,  on  human  voli- 
tion. The  experience  of  those  who  were  immediately 
qualified  by  God  to  execute  the  pattern  of  the  Jewish 
tabernacle,  is  illustrative  of  the  point  in  hand.  They  were 
thus  enabled  to  do  what  they  were  previously  unable  to 
do.  But  who  will  pretend  that  the  power  they  thus  ex- 
erted was  not  their  power,  and  that  the  act  of  making  the 
tabernacle  was  God's  act,  and  not  theirs  ?   On  the  princi- 


66  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY, 


■\ 


pie  adopted  by  the  objector,  it  might  be  insisted  upon  that 
the  power  with  which  Samson  carried  off  the  gates  of 
Gaza  was  not  Samson's,  and  that  in  truth  he  did  not  per- 
form that  act.  Who,  that  is  familiar  with  his  Bible,  does 
not  know  that  the  power  of  the  Christian  is  frequently 
called  the  power  of  God,  to  indicate  its  source  and  man's 
dependance,  and  to  secure  to  God  the  praise  due  to  him, 
while  it  is  also  spoken  of  as  man's  power,  for  the  exercise 
of  which  he  is  held  responsible  ?  Now  is  there  any  more 
inconsistency  in  these  views,  than  in  those  which  declare 
every  thing  in  the  wide  universe  to  be  the  property  of 
God,  and  yet  contemplate  our  possessions  as  ours,  and 
subject  to  our  volition  and  appropriation  ? 

It  is  also  objected,  that  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  that  man 
possesses  natural  ability  to  serve  God,  makes  the  will  or 
inclination  to  perform  an  act,  essential  to,  and  identical 
with,  the  power  to  perform  it. 

This  objection  is  evidently  based  on  the  supposition, 
that  fallen  man  has,  of  himself,  every  thing  that  is  neces- 
sary to  his  serving  God,  excepting  the  will  or  inclination. 
This  notion  we  have  shown  to  be  utterly  imfounded.  We 
have  adduced  Scripture  authority,  proving  that  when  the 
will  or  inclination  is  present,  and  manifesting  itself  in 
efforts  to  do  what  is  right,  those  efforts  may  fail  through 
depravity.  But,  although  this  objection  does  not  lie  against 
Arminianism,  it  is  properly  chargeable  on  those  who  hold 
the  distinction  of  natural  and  moral  ability.  They  not 
only  make  the  will  essential  to  power,  in  every  instance, 
but  also  identical  with  it,  and  this  is  one  of  the  objections 
which  we  have  to  that  distinction. 

This  argument  against  our  theory  is  urged  with  great 
earnestness  by  Mr.  Hinton,  and  in  a  form  which  may  en- 
title it  to  particular  consideration.  It  is  managed  with 
considerable  adroitness,  but  a  close  inspection  and  analysis 
will  expose  its  fallacy.     Mr.  H.  adopts  the  term  disposi- 


NEW  DIVINITY ^ABILITV.  67 

tion,  in  preference  to  xmll  or  inclination,  and  defines  it  thus : 
"  The  habitually  prevalent  state  of  the  heart  in  any  respect, 
we  call  the  disposition  of  a  man  in  that  respect."  He 
distinguishes  it  from  inclination,  which,  he  says,  "is  not 
necessarily  either  habitual  or  prevailing :  it  may  be  nei- 
ther." He  also  distinguishes  it  from  affections,  which 
he  considers  "  occasional,  temporary,  and  subordinate  states 
of  feeling;"  and  also  from  will,  which  he  conceives 
to  mean  "  either  a  simple  determination,  or  the  faculty  of 
determining  according  to  our  feelings." 

By  adopting,  and  thus  defining,  the  term  disposition,  in 
this  argument,  Mr.  H.  expects,  we  suppose,  to  gain  seve- 
ral important  points.  In  the  first  place,  he  makes  indispo- 
sition to  serve  God,  include  the  whole  of  human  depravity ; 
so  that  if  he  can  succeed  in  his  attempt  to  prove  that  full 
power  to  serve  God  may  be  possessed  in  connection  with 
that  want  of  disposition  to  serve  him,  which  constitutes 
depravity,  it  will  follow  of  course,  that  depravity  does  not 
interfere  with  power.  He  will  also  secure  the  position, 
that  the'  Holy  Spirit's  influences  may  be  necessary  to 
change  the  disposition  or  habitually  prevalent  state  of  the 
heart,  and  yet  not  necessary  to  give  ability  to  keep  the  law 
of  God.  It  is  quite  plain,  that  if  he  can  carry  these  points, 
he  will  establish  the  doctrine  Avhich  we  are  endeavouring 
to  refute. 

Having,  in  this  manner,  prepared  his  way,  he  proposes 
the  question,  "  Is  our  having  a  disposition  toward  any  ac" 
tion  essential  to  our  having  power  to  perform  it  ?" 

But,  in  tracing  his  argument,  we  find  that  he  entirely 
forgets  his  definition,  and  uses  the  term  "  disposition"  in 
the  sense  of  inclination  and  will,  and  interchangeably  with 
those  terms.  He  remarks,  in  the  process  of  his  reason- 
ing, "  Nothing  is  more  common,  and  few  things  are  more 
important,  than  the  distinction  between  power  and  inclina- 
tion.    You  can,  but  you  will  not,  is  language  almost  in- 


68  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

cessantly  used,  and  the  basis  of  some  very  important  trans- 
actions ;  as  vv^hen  an  idle  fellow  is  sent  to  the  treadmill, 
or  an  able  but  reluctant  debtor  to  the  prison." — p.  112. 
So  that  instead  of  proving  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
habitually  prevalent  state  of  a  sinner's  heart,  which  aifects 
his  power  of  keeping  the  divine  law,  he  merely  proves, 
that  inclination  or  will,  or  disposition  in  the  sense  of 
these  terms,  is  not  essential  to  power.  But  he  had  pre- 
viously informed  his  readers,  that  the  terms  will  and  in- 
clination are  not  synonymous  with  disposition,  and  do  not 
represent  the  "  habitually  prevalent  state  of  the  heart ;" 
so  that  he  virtually  abandons  his  project  in  the  progress 
of  the  argument. 

Again,  by  the  manner  in  which  he  proposes  the  ques- 
tion for  argaiment,  the  point  at  issue  is  evaded.  The 
question  is  not,  whether  will,  or  inclination,  or  disposition 
to  perform  an  action,  is  essential  to  the  power  to  perform 
it ;  but  whether  disinclination,  or  a  contrary  disposition, 
may  be  so  strong  and  intense,  as  to  destroy  the  power. 
These  questions,  when  examined,  will  appear  widely  dif- 
ferent. I  may  be  able  to  move  onward  against  a  certain 
amount  of  resistance,  but  if  that  resistance  be  increased, 
I  may  thereby  be  rendered  unable  to  proceed  another  step. 
But  it  is  not,  therefore,  necessary  to  enable  me  to  proceed, 
that  the  whole  resisting  force  should  be  reversed  in  its 
direction,  so  as  to  impel  me  forward.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  remove  entirely  the  resistance,  but  merely  to  diminish 
it.  Apply  the  illustration  to  the  subject  before  us.  Sup- 
pose a  certain  amount  of  disinclination,  or  indisposition,  to 
disable  a  man  to  perform  the  act  to  which  he  is  thus  indis- 
posed ;  it  does  not  follow  that  he  must  have  a  positive  dis- 
position to  perform  that  act,  to  enable  him  to  perform  it. 
It  may  be  sufficient  that  the  strength  of  the  contrary  dis- 
position be  diminished. 

That  depravity,  whatever  it  may  consist  in,  does  inter- 


NEW  DIVINITY— ^ABILITV^.  69 

fere  with  the  power  to  live  a  strictly  holy  life,  is  not  only 
the  dictate  of  Scripture,  but  also  of  reason. 

To  suppose  the  contrary,  implies  that  it  is  as  easy  for 
the  most  abandoned  profligate  to  resist  temptations  to  vice, 
as  it  is  for  the  most  moral  and  religious — that  it  is  as  easy 
for  the  veriest  miser  to  contribute  a  thousand  pounds  to  a 
purely  benevolent  object,  as  it  is  for  the  most  benevolent 
man — ^that  the  difficulty  of  becoming  religious  is  not  at  all 
increased  by  habitual  and  persevering  profligacy,  a  senti- 
ment at  war  with  the  universal  judgment  of  men.  And  to 
this  result  Mr.  H.'s  theory  has  actually  conducted  him. 
"  We  are  quite  ready,"  he  remarks,  "  to  admit  the  fact, 
that  a  disposition  toward  an  action  seems  to  render  the 
doing  of  it  easy,  and  that  a  contrary  disposition  seems  to 
render  it  difficult,  sometimes  even  to  impossibility.  But 
it  only  seems  to  do  so." — p.  115.  It  appears,  then,  that  the 
whole  religious  world  in  particular,  has  been  labouring 
under  a  delusion  on  this  subject,  which  New  Divinity  has 
the  honour  to  dispel.  We  have  been  accustomed  from 
our  boyhood  to  hear,  from  the  pulpits  of  different  denomi- 
nations, as  a  motive  to  immediate  repentance,  that  post- 
ponement and  crime  harden  the  heart,  and  render  the 
exercises  of  repentance  more  difficult.  But  this  argument 
must  now  be  laid  aside.  Other  reasons  for  instant  atten- 
tion to  the  claims  of  the  gospel  may  exist,  but  this  is  de- 
stroyed. It  is  discovered  to  be  fallacious.  No  difficulty 
is  thus  created.  It  will  be  as  easy  for  the  debauchee  to 
become  a  Christian,  when  he  has  grown  hoary  in  crime, 
as  it  is  before  he  enters  on  his  polluted  career.  The  in- 
spired writers,  too,  and  even  the  Saviour  himself,  must 
come  in  for  a  share  of  this  timely  correction,  and  must 
now  stand  instructed,  that  those  who  "  are  accustomed  to 
do  evil"  have  no  more  difficulty  in  learning  "  to  do  well," 
than  those  who  have  yet  to  form  all  their  habits  ;  and  that 
so  far  from  the  rich  having  any  peculiar  difficulty  in  be- 


•70  NfiW  DIVINITY ABILITY. 

coming  Christians,  it  is  just  as  easy  for  the  weahhy  and 
proud  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  it  is  for  those  who 
are  poor,  and  comparatively  humble. 

But  if  disposition  may  interfere  with  power,  will  it  not 
follow,  that  ability  and  disposition,  inability  and  indispo- 
sition, are  identical  1  No  !  Whether  they  are  in  fact 
identical  or  not,  no  such  conclusion  results  from  these 
premises.  The  objection  assumes,  that  whatever  causes 
inability  to  perform  an  action,  is  identical  with  inability  to 
perform  it,  and  that  the  facilities,  caused  by  the  removal 
of  the  impediment,  are  identical  with  the  ability  that  re- 
sults. This,  however,  is  not  the  case.  Suppose  a  vehicle 
drawn  by  two  spirited  and  powerful  horses.  The  driver 
turns  into  a  bye-road,  and  brings  the  wheels  in  contact 
with  an  obstacle.  The  horses  are  unable  to  go  forward. 
But  is  the  obstacle  which  causes  the  inability,  in  this  case, 
identical  with  the  inability  ?  The  driver  finds  it  neces- 
sary to  remove  the  obstruction.  But  is  the  facility,  caused 
Tby  its  removal,  to  be  identified  with  the  ability  of  the 
horses  to  proceed  1  No  one  would  imagine  such  a  thing. 
In  like  manner,  indisposition  may  cause  inability,  and 
disposition  may  cause  ability,  and  yet  these  things  be  en- 
tirely distinct. 

We  think  this  plausible  objection  fairly  refuted,  and  yet 
it  may  be  satisfactory  to  some  of  our  readers  to  have  ad- 
ditional light  on  the  relation  which  will,  inclination,  and 
disposition  actually  sustain  to  power. 

If  by  the  will  we  understand  the  power  of  volition — the 
"  faculty  of  determining,"  it  is  clear  enough,  that  it  is  es- 
sential to  the  power  to  perform  voluntary  actions  ;  unless 
we  suppose  a  man  able  to  perform  such  actions,  in  the 
absence  of  a  faculty  which  is  indispensable  to  their  per- 
formance. 

If  the  term  "  will"  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  simple  volition, 
the  will  is  esseatial  to  the  ability  to  perform  voluntary  ao- 


NEWT  DIVINITY ABILITY.  71 

tions.  Such  is  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind,  that  the 
volition  must  necessarily  precede  the  action.  .To  affirm  that 
a  man  has  power  to  do  what,  in  this  sense,  he  does  not 
will  to  do,  would  be  as  unphilosophical  as  to  affirm  that 
he  has  power  to  talk  without  employing  the  organs  of 
speech.  So  that  when  we  say,  a  man  has  power  to  per- 
form a  certain  action,  we  include  the  idea  that  he  has 
power  to  will  its  performance. 

But  if  the  term  be  imderstood  in  the  sense  of  inclina- 
tion, the  case  is  altered.  Inclination  is  not  m  all  cases 
essential  to  power.  There  are,  and  must  be,  many  ac- 
tions which  we  can  perform,  although  we  are  disinclined 
to  the  performance  of  them.  Were  not  this  the  case,  there 
would  be  no  reason  in  exhortations  to  sacrifice  of  feeling, 
or  self-denial.  It  would  be  absurd  to  expect  a  man  to  act 
contrary  to  his  incUnation,  and,  of  course,  to  exhort  him 
to  that  effect. 

We  go  further.  We  say  that  indisposition  does  not 
always  destroy  the  power  to  perform  the  action  against 
which  its  influence  is  directed,  taking  the  word  according 
to  Mr.  Hinton's  definition,  and  construing  it  to  include  the 
whole  of  human  depravity.  Else  it  were  utterly  useless 
to  require  a  man  to  act,  in  any  instance,  against  his  de- 
pravity. It  would  be  absolutely  necessary  for  some  foreign 
power  to  remove  the  depravity,  before  man  could  possibly 
act,  in  any  instance,  in  a  contrary  course.  This  would 
destroy  the  relevancy,  and  effect,  of  all  exhortations  ad- 
dressed to  confessedly  depraved  beings,  requiring  them  to 
change,  in  any  respect,  their  line  of  conduct. 

And  yet,  there  may  be  other  actions,  which  require  the 
disposition,  and  inclination,  as  essential  to  the  power  to 
perform  them.  Take,  for  instance,  those  strictly  spiritual 
exercises  which  proceed  from  love  to  God.  To  say  that 
a  man  can  perform  these  with  a  contrary  disposition,  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  he  can  perform,  from  a  principle 


72  NEW  DIVINITY ABILITV 

of  enmity  to  God,  the  exercises  which  invariably  proceed 
from  supreme  love  to  God.  To  such  exercises  the  in- 
spired writers  have  reference,  when  they  tell  us  that  "the 
carnal  mind  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  in- 
deed can  be,"  and  that  the  natural  man  neither  discerns, 
nor  can  discern,  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  To  the  ability 
requisite  for  these  things,  another  state  of  mind  is  abso- 
lutely necessary. 

The  practical  bearing  of  these  views,  which,  we  believe, 
contain  the  philosophy  of  the  Scriptures  on  the  subject,  is 
this, — although  the  unregenerate  sinner  cannot,  in  his 
present  condition,  do  all  that  is  required  of  him  in  order 
to  salvation,  there  are  some  things  which  he  can  do,  even 
against  his  inclination — against  his  depravity,  the  per- 
formance of  which,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  has  a  ten- 
dency to  undermine  that  depravity,  and  superinduce 
another  state  of  mind.  They  are  the  "  works  meet  for 
repentance"  which  God  has  made  indispensable  to  pardon 
and  regeneration.  He  can,  for  instance,  go  to  the  church 
instead  of  the  theatre.  He  can  give  his  attention  to  the 
ministry  of  the  word.  He  can  read  his  Bible.  He  can 
take  first  one  step,  and  then  another,  in  that  preliminary 
process  which  leads  on  to  the  disposition,  and  inclination, 
and  power,  to  do  whatever  God  commands. 

With  these  explanations,  we  can  easily  dispose  of  Mr. 
H.'s  plausible  illustrations.  Does  he  intimate  that,  ac- 
cording to  our  theory,  the  man  who  has  "  sufficient  money 
to  satisfy  his  creditors,  but  is  fond  of  gaming,"  has  "no 
disposition,"  and  therefore  no  "  power  to  pay  liis  debts  ?" 
We  reply,  no  such  consequence  results  from  it.  He  may 
be  able  to  do  all  this,  notwithstanding  his  indisposition. 
The  law  of  the  land  proceeds  on  the  supposition  that  this 
to  the  case.  And  yet  there  may  be  other  things  which  he 
cannot  do  against  his  disposition.  Hence  the  gospel  not 
only  requires  those  exercises  for  which  the  disposition  is 


NEW  DIVINITY ABILITY.  73 

necessary,  but  also  provides  means  by  which  the  disposi- 
tion may  be  acquired. 

Mr.  H.  endeavours  to  fix  on  the  notion  that  power  may 
depend  on  disposition,  the  charge  of  absurdity, — "  As,  for 
instance,"  he  says,  "  I  am  surrounded  by  several  hundred 
places,  and  am  not  disposed  to  go  to  any  of  them.  But 
have  I,  therefore,  no  power  to  go  to  any  of  them  1  In  that 
case  I  must  be  considered  as  fixed,  literally  like  a  rock, 
to  my  position,  till  I  am  disposed  to  move,  with  which 
disposition  to  move,  it  appears,  my  power  of  moving  is 
identical." — p.  113. 

The  answer  to  this  is,  that  while  disposition  may  be  es- 
sential to  power  in  some  instances,  it  is  not  in  everj/  in- 
stance. Mr.  H.  observes  a  caution  in  the  statement  of  his 
premises,  which  seems  to  indicate  that  he  was  fully  aware 
of  this  distinction.  He  remarks,  "  On  the  contrary,  the 
obvious  fact  is,  that  we  have  power  to  do  mani/  things, 
whether  we  are  disposed  to  do  the?n  or  not."  But  he  is 
chargeable  with  the  fallacy  of  arguing  from  the  fact  that 
we  can  do  "  many  things"  without  the  disposition,  that 
we  can  do  a?ii/  thing  possible  to  be  done  by  us,  without 
the  disposition.  The  one  is  admitted,  but  not  the  other. 
He  may  be  able  to  go  to  any  one  of  the  hundred  places, 
notwithstanding  he  is  not  disposed,  and  yet,  he  may  not  be 
able  to  go  to  heaven,  or  do  that  which  is  necessary  to  take 
him  there,  without  the  disposition. 

But  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  Mr.  H.'s  argument 
is  the  manner  in  which  he  involves  himself  in  the  ab- 
surdity in  which  he  attempts  to  involve  his  opponents. 
On  the  supposition,  that  disposition  to  go  to  any  of  these 
places  is  essential  to  the  power,  he  argues,  "  In  that  case 
I  must  be  considered  as  fixed,  literally  like  a  rock,  to  my 
position,"  &c.  And  yet  he  tells  us,  in  the  very  next  pa- 
ragraph, that,  although  disposition  is  not  necessary  to 
power,  "  Nothing  certainly  can  be  more  obvious  than  that 


74  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

a  voluntary  being  will  never  act  further  than  he  feels  a  dis- 
position to  do  so."  So  that  in  attempting  to  chain  his  op- 
ponents, he  has  chained  himself;  for,  according  to  his 
own  showing,  whether  a  man  can  change  his  position  or 
not,  without  a  disposition,  no  voluntary  agent  ever  will ;  so 
that  the  man  without  the  disposition  must  assuredly  stay 
where  he  is. 

Is  it  objected  that  our  doctrine  represents  grace  as  ne- 
cessary, not  because  man  is  wicked,  but  because  he  is 
weak  1  We  reply,  that  it  contemplates  grace  as  neces- 
sary, because  man  is  both  wicked  and  weak.  Weakness 
may  proceed  from  depravity,  as  well  as  from  other  causes, 
but  it  is  weakness  still,  and  there  is  no  inconsistency  in 
supposing  that  the  plan  of  salvation  has  made  provision 
for  its  remedy. 


CHAPTER  V. 

DEPRAVITY. 

Having  shown  that  the  Scriptures  are  decidedly  at 
variance  with  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability  of  fallen 
man  to  obey  God ;  and  having  also  ascertained  the  utter 
failure  of  the  principal  arguments  relied  on  to  sustain  it, 
we  shall  proceed  to  examine  the  other  constituent  parts 
of  the  system,  to  which  this  doctrine  leads  by  plain  logical 
consequence. 

It  is  supposed,  by  some,  that  this  controversy  on  the 
subject  of  ability,  is  wholly  imimportant, — that  if  the  ability 
of  the  sinner  to  do  his  duty  is  admitted,  nothing  is  gained, 
or  lost,  by  adopting  either  the  one  theory  or  the  other,  re- 
specting the  source  of  that  ability.  This  is  a  mistake. 
The  doctrine  of  natural  ability  modifies  extensively  the 
system  of  theology  which  includes  it,  and  introduces,  in 
fact,  "  another  gospel." 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  75 

This  theory  of  ability,  as  it  is  usually  stated,  leads  to  the 
doctrine,  that  all  depravity  lies  in  the  will — that  it  consists 
wholly  in  unwillingness.  The  process  of  deduction  is 
easy.  We  are  told  that  all  have  a  natural  ability  to  love 
and  serve  God,  and  that  all  which  hinders  our  love  and  obe- 
dience to  him  is  our  want  of  will.  Now  it  is  that  which 
hinders  our  love  and  obedience  to  God  which  constitutes 
our  depravity.  Our  unwillingness,  therefore,  as  it  is  the 
only  hindrance  to  the  love  and  service  of  God,  constitutes 
our  depravity,  and  the  whole  of  our  depravity. 

This  consequence  is  not  denied ;  but  the  view  of  human 
depravity  which  it  presents,  is  frequently  and  confidently 
affirmed.  Dr.  Tyler,  in  a  sermon  on  "  Free  Salvation," 
published  in  the  second  volume  of  the  "  National  Preacher," 
writes  thus  :  "  Why  is  it  necessary  that  men  should  be 
born  again  ?  Not  because  they  are  unable  to  do  their  duty, 
if  they  will ;  but  because  they  are  unwilling  to  do  it.  It 
is  their  depravity  which  renders  the  supernatural  change 
necessary.  But  their  depravity  is  not  their  calamity  merely, 
but  their  crime.  It  consists,  as  we  have  seen,  in  a  perverse 
inclination ;  in  a  voluntary  and  obstinate  refusal  to  yield 
obedience  to  the  reasonable  commands  of  Jehovah.  What 
the  sinner  needs,  therefore,  is  to  have  this  perverse  incli- 
nation changed ;  that  is,  to  be  made  willing  to  do  what  God 
requires.  The  necessity  for  this  change,  therefore,  sup- 
poses no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  his  salvation,  except  his 
own  unwillingness  to  do  his  duty." 

.  Dr.  Tyler,  we  would  remark,  is  an  Old  School  writer. 
We  have  quoted  from  him  merely  to  show,  that  this  ten- 
dency of  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  is  recognised,  and 
the  consequence  held. 

Dr.  Lansing  says,  in  his  sermon  on  the  Necessity  of 
Regeneration,  "  Nothing  more  is  necessary  for  God  to  do 
for  you,  than  to  make  you  willing ;  and  hence  your  volun- 
tary opposition  to  him  is  the  only  obstacle  to  your  salva- 


76  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

tion."  This  doctrine  is  asserted  by  Mr.  Barnes,  in  his 
answer  to  the  protest  against  his  sermon.  He  endeavours 
to  prove  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  He  says,  "  In  this  passage  the  following  things 
are  thought  worthy  of  observation  : — 1 .  That  here  is  an 
express  and  formal  definition  of  what  the  framers  of  the 
constitution  meant  by  inability.  This  is  the  object  of  the 
chapter,  to  explain  the  state  of  man  since  the  fall,  in  refer- 
ence to  obeying  the  law  of  God.  2.  That  they  expressly 
affirm  that  the  difficulty  is  in  the  will,  having  lost  all  ability 
of  will.  Nor  do  they  mention  any  other  difficulty  or  obstacle 
in  the  way  of  man's  conversion,  but  what  lies  in  the  will. 
That  is  evidently  implying  that  if  the  will  were  right, 
there  were  no  other  obstacle."  Indeed,  President  Edwards 
himself  carried  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  directly  to 
this  result.  With  respect  to  depravity  he  says,  in  his 
treatise  on  the  will,  "  Now  this  doctrine  supposes  no  other 
necessity  of  sinning  than  a  moral  necessity ;  which,  as 
has  been  shown,  don't  at  all  excuse  sin ;  and  supposes  no 
other  inability  to  obey  any  command  or  perform  any  duty, 
even  the  most  spiritual  and  exalted,  but  a  moral  inability." 
This  moral  inability  he  defines  to  consist  "  in  the  opposi- 
tion, or  want  of  incUnation." 

But  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  leads  to  still  more 
ultra  and  dangerous  views  of  human  depravity.  It  leads 
to  the  consequence  that  depravity  consists  solely  in  volun- 
tary exercises.  Any  other  view  of  depravity  is  found  to 
conflict  with  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability.  Even  disin- 
clination or  unwillingness,  may  be  so  strong  as  to  consti- 
tute a  real  inability  to  do,  in  some  instances,  that  to  which 
it  is  opposed.  President  Edwards  justly  remarks  : — "  I 
suppose  that  none  will  deny  but  that  in  some  cases  a  pre- 
vious bias,  or  inclination,  or  the  motive  presented,  may  be 
so  powerful  that  the  act  of  the  will  may  be  constantly  and 
indissolubly  connected  therewith.     When  motives  or  pre- 


NEW  DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY.  77 

vious  bias  are  very  strong,  all  will  allow  that  there  is 
some  difficulty  in  going  against  them.  And  if  they  were 
yet  stronger,  the  difficulty  will  be  greater :  and  therefore, 
if  more  were  still  added  to  their  strength,  to  a  certain  de- 
gree, it  would  make  the  difficulty  so  great  that  it  would  be 
impossible  to  surmount  it."  Unwillingness,  or  disinclina- 
tion, constitutes  the  moral  inability  of  New  School  Cal- 
vinism ;  and  whenever  it  constitutes  a  real  inability,  that 
inability  is  natural ;  as  much  so  as  that  arising  from  any 
other  cause.  It  has  its  origin  in  the  constitution  of  our 
nature.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  that  depravity  consists 
in  unwillingness  or  disinclination  to  serve  God,  which 
may  constitute  a  real  inability,  and  which  moreover  may 
be  hereditary  and  constitutional,  is  at  variance  with  the 
doctrine  of  natural  ability.  Nor  will  it  answer  to  make 
depravity  consist  in  habit:  for  the  tendency  of  vicious 
habit  is  to  interfere  with  the  ability  to  serve  God.  So  the 
Scriptures  represent : — "  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his 
skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots  1  then  may  ye  also  do  good, 
that  are  accustomed  to  do  evil."  The  only  way,  there- 
fore, of  securing  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability,  is  by  lo- 
cating depravity  in  the  action  itself.  Whether  I  have  hit 
on  the  process  of  reasoning  by  which  the  disciples  of  New 
Divinity  come  to  this  conclusion  or  not,  it  is  certain  that 
to  this  conclusion  many  of  them  have  come.  They  deny 
that  depravity  is  constitutional  and  hereditary,  or  that  it 
consists  in  a  principle,  or  disposition,  or  propensity,  or 
taste,  or  corruption  of  our  nature  ;  or  any  thing  which 
"  lies  back"  of  the  will,  or  is  anterior  to  our  voluntary  exer- 
cises, or  is  the  cause  of  them,  and  maintain  that  it  consists 
solely  in  the  actions  themselves. 

This  view  of  depravity  is  strenuously  advocated  by  Mr. 
Duffield,  in  his  work  on  regeneration.  He  thus  states  the 
different  theories  on  the  subject,  at  the  commencement  of 
his  investigations  : — "  Whether  depravity  is  to  be  found 


78  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

exclusively  in  the  vi^ill,  or  equally  in  all  the  faculties — 
whether  it  has  its  origin  in  a  modification  of  our  essential 
nature — whether  it  is  created  in  us,  or  derived  by  a  natu- 
ral descent — whether  it  consists  in  acts  or  exercises,  or 
in  something  back  of  them,  which  lays  the  foundation  for 
them  in  the  very  nature  of  the  essential  soul — whether  it 
is  some  deranged  and  inappropriate  exercise  of  our  moral 
powers,  and  to  be  referred  to  the  character  of  the  control 
ling  objects,  or  of  the  governing  moral  principle — are  ques- 
tions that  have  been  seriously  agitated."  The  theory 
which  he  adopts  is,  that  "  it  consists  in  acts  and  exer- 
cises," in  "  some  deranged  and  inappropriate  exer- 
cises." 

He  says,  "  We  cannot  conceive  of  enmity  against  God 
consisting  in  constitution,  or  mere  existence,  abstract  es- 
sence, or  mere  nature.  It  is  in  its  very  nature,  really  and 
formally  the  workings  or  the  (tcts  and  exercises  of  a  rational 
and  feeling  creature,  so  that  when  the  apostles  resolve  all 
that  is  in  the  world,  which  is  not  of  the  Father,  into  lust- 
ings,  and  represent  these  lustings  to  be  in  enmity  with 
God,  we  are  infallibly  directed  in  making  our  estimate  of 
human  depravity,  to  have  exclusive  regard  to  the  acts  and 
exercises  of  the  human  soul." — p.  338. 

Again :  *'  And  the  reason  is,  because  practically  we  do 
not  predicate  depravity  of  the  corporeal  or  even  mental 
constitution  of  man,  but  of  the  actual  exercise  of  those 
powers  which  are  implied  or  requisite  in  the  willing  to  do, 
or  doing  what  the  law  prohibits,  or  refusing  what  it  re- 
quires."— Ibid. 

Again  :  "  And  God  being  under  no  obligation,  nor 
choosing  in  this  world  to  vouchsafe  the  influence  of  his 
Holy  Spirit,  which  is  necessary  to  prevent  from  choosing 
what  is  wrong — there  shall  take  place  those  acts  of  which 
alone  we  can  legitimately  and  intelligently  predicate  mora] 
depravity." — ^p.  379. 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  79* 

"  Charge  not  your  impenitence  on  any  constitutional 
depravity." — ^p.  344. 

"  For  it  does  not  appear  that  Adam  lost  or  acquired  any 
physical  property  by  his  rebellion ;  nor  that  his  nature, 
consisting  simply  of  his  created  substance  and  its  consti- 
tutional properties,  sustained  any  physical  change  by  his 
sin.  His  voluntary  exercises  were  sadly  deranged,  and 
became  awfully  depraved ;  but  that  depravity  formed  no 
part  of  his  substance,  nor  belonged  to  his  constitutional  pro- 
perties. It  attached  to  his  character  as  a  moral  agent. 
How  then  could  he  transmit  by  natural  generation  what 
did  not  inhere  in  his  own  constitution  ?" — p.  284. 

"  Must  we  believe  that  men  are  inclined  in  the  same 
way  to  sin,  and  that  therefore,  because  of  an  innate  pro- 
pensity to  sin — the  foimdation  laid  in  the  very  nature — 
that  nature  apart  from,  and  prior  to,  any  of  its  moral  actings^ 
is  sinful  ?  This  is  to  make  men  sin  by  physical  neces- 
sity."—p.  307. 

"  His  depravity  consists  in  the  misdirection  and  inap- 
propriate exercise  of  his  faculties  ;  not  in  wrong  faculties 
inherited.  And  many  causes  may  operate  to  secure  such 
a  direction  and  exercise  of  his  faculties,  without  inferring 
from  false  analogies,  suggested  by  a  false  physiology,  that 
it  must  be  an  operative  principle  in  the  very  soul,  apart  from 
and  anterior  to  its  exercises." — p.  310. 

Mr.  Finney,  who  has  acquired  great  eminence  in  the 
ranks  of  New  DiAdnity,  comes  forth  as  a  bold  and  sturdy 
advocate  of  this  doctrine.  He  says,  in  his  sermon  on  to- 
tal depravity,  "  Some  persons  have  spoken  of  depravity, 
and  of  the  pollution  of  our  nature,  as  if  there  were  some 
moral  depravity  cleaving  to,  or  incorporated  with,  the  very 
substance  of  our  being.  Now  this  is  to  talk  utter  nonsense. 
If  such  a  depravity  were  possible,  it  would  not  be  moral, 
but  physical  depravity.  It  could  not  be  a  depravity 
for  which  we  were   blameworthy.     It   could  not  be  a 


80  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

sinful  depravity.  It  would  be  a  disease,  and  not  a 
crime." 

"  I  do  not  mean  by  total  depravity  that  there  is  the  same 
disposition  to  sin  belonging  to  the  substance  of  body  or 
mind  that  there  is  in  a  serpent  to  bite,  or  in  a  wolf  to  de- 
vour sheep.  In  other  words,  I  do  not  mean  that  there  is 
a  constitutional  appetite  or  craving  for  sin  implanted  in  the 
substance  of  the  body  or  the  mind." 

'*  Moral  depravity  is  a  quality  of  voluntary  action,  not  of 
substance.  It  does  not  belong  to  the  constitution,  but  be- 
longs purely  and  exclusively  to  character." 

"  It  is  not  meant  there  is  any  thing  in  the  constitution, 
or  substance  of  body  or  mind,  that  is  opposed  to  God." 

"  It  is  not  meant  that  there  are  appetites,  or  propensities, 
that  are  constitutional,  which  are  enmity  against  God." 

"  Total  depravity  does  not  consist  in  any  principle  of  sin 
that  is  incorporated  with  our  being." 

"  By  total  depravity  is  not  meant  that  any  being  is  or 
can  be  sinful  before  he  has  exercised  the  powers  of  moral 
agency." 

"  I  do  not  mean  that  there  is  some  constitutional  de- 
pravity, which  lies  back,  and  is  the  cause  of  actual  trans- 
gression." 

"  By  total  depravity,  I  do  not  mean  that  there  is  any  sin 
in  human  beings,  or  in  any  other  beings  separate  from 
actual  transgression." 

"  It  should  be  well  imderstood,  and  always  remembered, 
that  the  carnal  mind,  as  used  by  the  apostle,  is  not  the 
mind  itself,  but  is  a  voluntary  action  of  the  mind." 

"  These  discourses  exhibit  a  very  different  view  of  total 
depravity,  from  that  which  regards  depravity  as  physical 
or  constitutional,  or  as  belonging  to  the  substance  of  the 
body  or  the  mind.  They  exhibit  all  depravity  as  volun- 
tary, as  consisting  in  voluntary  transgression." 

"  0  the  darkness,  and  confusion,  and  utter  nonsense  of 


NEW  DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY.  81 

that  view  of  depravity  which  exhibits  it  as  something  lying 
hack,  and  the  cause  of  all  transgression  !" 

"  From  this  subject  you  can  see  that  the  wicked  con- 
duct of  sinners  is  no  proof  that  their  nature  is  sinful.  The 
universal  sinfulness  of  men  has  been  supposed  to  con- 
duct to  the  inevitable  conclusion  that  the  nature  of  man 
must  be  in  itself  sinful." 

"  The  sinner's  hatred  of  God  is  not  caused  by  any  he- 
reditary or  transmitted  disposition  to  hate  him.  A  dispo- 
sition to  hate  God  is  itself  hatred.  Disposition  is  an  action 
of  the  mind,  and  not  a  part  of  the  mind  itself.  It  is  there- 
fore absurd  to  talk  of  an  hereditary  or  transmitted  disposi- 
tion to  love  or  hate  God,  or  any  thing  else." 

Dr.  Lansing,  in  his  sermon  on  "  The  Inability  of  Sin- 
ners Voluntary,"  says,  "  We  learn  from  our  subject  that 
all  sin  consists  in  the  voluntary  exercises  of  the  sinning 
agent." 

And  if  Mr.  Barnes  does  not  hold  or  intend  to  teach  this 
doctrine,  he  certainly  gives  it  countenance  in  those  decla- 
rations to  which  his  opponents  have  taken  exception : 
1.  That  "all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action.^'  2.  "That 
infants  have  no  moral  character."  By  this  latter  assertion 
he  evidently  means,  that  until  infants  have  performed 
voluntary  accountable  actions,  they  are  neither  holy  nor 
depraved.  Compare  these  assertions,  and  the  result  is, 
plainly,  that  all  depravity  consists  in  voluntary  action.  And 
in  perfect  accordance  with  this  doctrine  is  his  comment 
on  the  seventh  verse  of  the  eighth  chapter  of  Romans  : 
"  Because  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God ;  for  it 
is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be." 
He  says,  "  It  does  not  mean  the  mind  itself,  the  intellect, 
or  the  will ;  it  does  not  suppose  that  the  mind  or  soul  is 
physically  depraved,  or  opposed  to  God  ;  but  it  means  that 
the  minding  of  the  things  of  the  flesh,  giving  to  them  su- 
preme attention,  is  hostility  to  God."     The  tendency  of 

4* 


82  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

tliis  comment  is,  evidently,  to  resolve  all  depravity  into 
the  voluntary  action  of  the  mind. 

This  doctrine  is  amply  exhibited  in  a  work  published 
several  years  since  in  New-York,  entitled  "  Views  in 
Theology."  The  author  of  it  asserts  that  "  the  Scriptural 
doctrine  of  depravity  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the 
physical  constitution ;  it  relates  exclusively  to  the  actions 
of  man,  and  simply  expresses  the  fact,  that  while  unre- 
newed, he  never  exercises  holiness." 

The  great  object  at  which  this  author  aims,  is,  to  prove 
that  any  other  view  of  depravity  than  that  which  makes  it 
to  consist  solely  in  voluntary  exercises,  involves  the  doc- 
trine of  "  physical  depravity,"  and  that  those  writers  who 
have  maintained  the  commonly  received  theory,  are 
chargeable  with  maintaining  the  doctrine  of  physical  de- 
pravity. His  own  views  are  further  developed  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage  : — 

"  There  is  nothing  in  the  constitution  of  man  on  his 
coming  into  being,  or  at  any  subsequent  period,  which  of 
itself — every  thing  else  being  thrown  out  of  consideration 
— ^lays  any  foundation  of  a  certainty  what  kind  of  actions 
he  will  exercise  when  placed  under  a  moral  influence ; 
nothing  from  which  it  can  be  infallibly  inferred  that  he 
will  exercise  sin  instead  of  holiness,  or  holiness  instead 
of  sin ;  nor  which  can  even  present  any  more  probability 
of  his  assuming  the  one  character  than  the  other. 

"  This  results  from  his  having  precisely  the  same  ca- 
pacity for  exercising  the  one  species  of  actions  as  the 
other.  Possessing  identically  the  same  capacity  for  obe- 
dience as  for  transgression,  can  any  one  imagine,  that 
by  simply  looking  at  his  capacity,  any  certainty  or  proba- 
bility can  be  discerned  of  his  exercising  the  one,  rather 
than  the  other  ?  Can  a  given  capacity  for  sin  constitute 
any  certainty  or  probability  that  sin  will  be  exercised, 
any  more  than  precisely  the  same  capacity  for  holiness 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  83 

forms  a  certainty  or  probability  that  holiness  will  be  exer- 
cised ? 

"  Or,  to  approach  the  point  through  a  different  avenue. 
No  depravity,  corruption,  taint,  nor  any  other  defect  what- 
ever of  that  nature,  pertains  to  the  constitution  of  man, 
rendering  him  physically  incapable  of  acting  in  conformity 
to  the  divine  will,  or  making  his  committing  sin  in  any 
sense  an  infallible  result.  Nothing  whatever  exists  in  it, 
therefore,  which  must,  by  a  necessity  of  its  nature,  prove 
a  cause  of  sin ;  nothing  then  which  of  course  operates  to 
the  production  of  sin  ;  nothing,  therefore,  which  constitutes 
a  tendency  to  sin  ;  nothing,  then,  in  short,  which  forms  any 
more  certainty  or  probability  that  he  will  exercise  that  spe- 
cies of  actions  which  is  evil,  than  that  which  is  morally 
excellent. 

"  Nothing  then  pertains  to  the  physical  nature  of  man 
which,  of  itself,  presents  any  certainty  or  probability  in 
what  manner  he  will  act,  when  placed  under  a  moral  in- 
fluence. It  has  no  tendency  whatever  one  way  or  the 
other ;  no.thing  partaking  in  any  sense  of  depravity,  cor- 
ruption, or  guilt,  or  making  any  approximation  toward 
them ;  nothing  which  is  in  any  sense  offensive  to  God ; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  perfectly  acceptable  to  him  :  as 
free  from  odious  defect,  and  as  completely  the  object  of 
his  complacency  as  were  the  physical  constitutions  of  the 
first  pair  when  created — as  are  the  natures  of  angels." — 
Part  iii,  p.  55. 

The  author  adds,  "  This  is  undoubtedly  a  very  different 
doctrine  from  that  which  is  ordinarily  inculcated."  It  is. 
I  thank  God  that  he  is  right  in  this  assertion.  The  fact, 
that  such  are  the  tendencies  and  doctrines  of  New  School 
Calvinism,  should  arouse  every  Methodist,  and  every  Old 
School  Calvinist,  to  excited  and  vigilant  jealousy  over 
every  thing  that  is  vital  and  valuable  in  our  common 
Christianity. 


84  NEW  DIVINITY— DEPRAVITY. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

DEPRAVITY    CONTINUED. 

We  shall  not  take  up  much  time  in  endeavouring  to 
refute  the  doctrine  that  depravity  consists  solely  in  un- 
willingness or  disinclination.  It  may  be  effectually  dis- 
posed of,  by  comparing  it  with  those  passages  from  the 
epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Galatians,  which  have  al- 
ready been  quoted  for  other  purposes.  They  settle  the 
question  summarily  and  decisively : — "  For  that  which 
I  do,  I  allow  not ;  for  what  I  would  that  do  I  not ;  but 
what  I  hate,  that  do  I.  If,  then,  I  do  that  which  I 
would  not,  I  consent  unto  the  law  that  it  is  good."  "  For 
to  will  is  present  with  me  ;  but  how  to  perform  that  which 
is  good  I  find  not."  "  For  the  good  that  I  would  I  do  not : 
but  the  evil  which  1  would  not,  that  I  do.  I  find  then  a 
.  law  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me," 
Rom.  vii.  "  For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and 
the  Spirit  against  the  flesh :  and  these  are  contrary  the 
one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye 
would,"  Gal.  V,  17.  This  language,  so  far  from  repre- 
senting that  all  depravity  consists  in  unwillingness,  de- 
clares the  presence  of  a  positive  willingness — a  willing- 
ness which  leads  to  efforts  to  keep  the  law,  and  yet  these 
efforts  fail  through  depravity.  The  depravity,  therefore, 
which  causes  the  difllculty,  whatever  may  be  its  specific 
nature,  must  be  supposed  to  consist  in  something  besides 
unwillingness ;  unless  we  are  prepared  to  admit  the  ab- 
surdity, that  the  only  reason  why  men  are  unable  to  per- 
form that  which  they  are  willing  and  strive  to  perform,  is, 
that  they  are  unwilling  and  do  not  strive  to  perform  it. 

But  the  doctrine  that  depravity  consists  wholly  in  volun- 
tary exercises,  demands  a  more  ample  investigation ;  not 


NEW  DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY.  85 

on  account  of  its  plausibility,  but  its  most  ruinous  tenden- 
cies, theoretical  and  practical. 

It  will  be  necessary,  in  the  first  place,  to  present  the 
question  at  issue,  free  from  all  embarrassing  associations. 
It  is  one  of  the  acts  of  sophistry,  so  to  involve  truth  and 
error  in  the  same  statement,  that  the  one  may  disparage 
or  derive  plausibility  from,  the  other  ;  that  an  assertion  of 
the  truth  may  seem  to  include  an  adoption  of  the  error ;  and 
that  a  denial  of  the  error  may  with  some  plausibility  be 
construed  into  a  denial  of  the  truth.  The  question  to  be 
discussed  is,  whether  depravity  consists  solely  in  volun- 
tary exercises  or  actual  transgression,  or  in  something  be- 
sides, which  is  the  source  of  actual  transgression.  But 
the  advocates  of  the  "  voluntary  exercise"  theory  have  seen 
proper  to  caricature  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  associate 
it  with  questions  from  which  it  is  entirely  distinct.  Of 
the  design  of  this  course  we  express  no  judgment.  The 
tendency  of  it  is  to  make  the  impression,  that  to  maintain 
the  doctrine  they  oppose  requires  the  adoption  and  main- 
tenance of  whatever  they  have  seen  proper  to  associate 
with  it.  They  write  as  though  we  must  either  adopt 
their  theory,  or  hold  that  depravity  consists  in  "  constitu- 
tion or  mere  existence,  abstract  essence  or  mere  nature" — 
"  in  some,  constitution  of  simple  nature  or  created  being," 
— that  it  forms  a  part  of  man's  "  substance," — that  it  is 
"  created"  and  "  lodged,"  or  "  implanted,"  or  "  incorporated" 
in,  or  "  infused,"  or  "  injected"  into  the  "  constitution,"  or 
"  internal  essence  and  structiure  of  the  soul,"  or  in  "  the  very 
substance  of  the  body  or  mind."  We  are  told  that  "  the 
mind  is  not  saturated  or  soaked  with  enmity." 

Now  the  question  which  we  are  at  present  discussing 
respects  solely  the  nature  of  depravity.  Whether  it  is 
derived  by  propagation,  or  superinduced  by  volition  as  in 
the  case  of  Adam,  or  created  by  God — whether  it  is  ac- 
quired by  infusion,  injection,  absorption,  implantation,  or 


8®  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

lodgment — ^whether  it  is  lodged  in  the  essence  of  the  soul, 
or  attaches  to  it  in  sonie  other  way — or  whether  its  seat 
is  in  the  body  or  soul,  are  questions  distinct  and  foreign 
from  the  point.  Nor  shall  we  feel  ourselves  under  any 
obligation  to  prove  that  it  consists  in  "  created  essence," 
&c.  Nor  shall  we  undertake  to  determine  its  meta-' 
physical  nature,  any  further  than  instructed  by  the  Scrip- 
tures.    Nor  do  we  care  even  to  give  it  a  name. 

The  Scriptures  just  quoted  against  the  doctrine,  that 
depravity  consists  wholly  in  unwillingness,  are  equally 
at  variance  with  the  doctrine  under  consideration.  They 
represent  depravity  as  something  which  resists  the  con- 
victions and  inclinations  of  the  mind,  and  defeats  its 
efforts.  Is  it  affirmed,  that  this  depravity  consists  solely 
in  voluntary  exercises  1  The  result,  then,  will  be  plainly 
this,  that  simple  volitions,  uncaused  by  any  propensity, 
rise  up  and  defeat  exertions  which  are  directed  by  the 
convictions  of  the  understanding,  and  enforced  by  incli- 
'  nation,  and  that  these  mysterious  volitions  result  in  ac- 
tions, which  the  understanding  condemns,  and  the  incli- 
nation abhors — that  the  mind,  without  being  prompted  by 
any  principle,  propensity,  disposition,  or  taste,  rises  up 
against  its  own  convictions,  inclinations,  purposes,  and 
volitions,  and  frustrates  them,  and  puts  forth  volitions 
wholly  at  variance  with  itself. 

But  do  the  terms,  in  which  the  apostle  speaks  directly 
of  depravity,  accord  with  the  doctrine,  that  it  consists 
solely  in  voluntary  exercises  ?  The  Scriptures  do  not 
deal  in  metaphysical  propositions,  but  they  are  never- 
theless based  on  true  philosophy,  and  revolt  at  every 
interpretation  which  assumes  a  false  philosophy.  Let 
us  try  the  passages  to  which  we  have  just  now  re- 
ferred. He  styles  it  "  the  law  of  sin" — "  the  law  of  sin 
in  my  members" — "  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me."  The  failure 
to  do  good,  and  the  commission  of  sin,  are  evidently  attri- 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  87 

buted  to  the  law  of  sin  as  their  source.  "  I  find  then  a 
law,  that  when  I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me." 
"  But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members  warring  against 
the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the 
law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members."  "  Now,  if  I  do  that 
I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwell- 
eth  in  me."  But  if  depravity  consists  wholly  in  actual  trans- 
gression, then  actual  transgression  is  its  own  cause,  which 
would  be  absurd.  Let  us  further  try  the  apostle's  reason- 
ing, on  the  supposition  that  depravity  consists  altogether 
in  voluntary  exercises.  Will  it  not  run  thus  ? — "  Now  if 
I  do  that  I  would  not,  it  is  no  more  I  that  do  it,  but  volun- 
tary action  that  dwelleth  in  me."  "  I  find  then  a  law  that 
when  I  would  do  good,  evil  voluntary  exercises  are  present 
with  me.  For  I  delight  in  the  law  of  God  after  the  in- 
ward man.  But  I  see  other  voluntary  exercises  in  my 
members,  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bring- 
ing me  into  captivity  to  the  voluntary  exercises  which  are 
in  my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall 
deliver  me  from  these  voluntary  exercises  V  It  is  impossi- 
ble to  interpret  this  passage  in  accordance  with  this  theory 
of  depravity,  without  outraging  common  sense. 

Human  depravity  is  frequently  styled  "  the  flesh,"  and 
spoken  of,  under  that  designation,  in  such  a  way  as  to  ex- 
clude the  doctrine  that  it  consists  solely  in  voluntary  ex- 
ercises. "For  'the  flesh'  lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and 
the  Spirit  against  the  flesh,  and  these  are  contrary  the 
one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye 
would."  Here  "  the  flesh"  or  depravity,  is  represented 
as  consisting,  not  in  actions,  but  in  something  that  acts. 
It  maintains  a  warfare  with  the  Spirit.  It  lusts  against 
the  Spirit.  Actual  transgression  is  denominated  fulfilling 
the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  in  opposition  to  walking  in  the 
Spirit.  There  would  be  precisely  the  same  authority  for 
resolving  the  Spirit  into  voluntary  exercises,  as  for  resolv- 


88  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

ing  the  flesh  into  voluntary  exercises.  But  what  would 
be  the  result  of  an  attempt  to  interpret  this  text  according 
to  the  theory  to  which  we  object  ?  Mr.  Duffield,  as  we 
have  seen,  in  his  effort  to  reconcile  it  with  the  doctrine  of 
natural  ability,  says,  "  The  word  here  translated  '  would' 
denotes  not  only  the  choice,  or  purpose,  but  that  choice  or 
purpose,  as  influenced  by  the  affections  or  feelings  of  de- 
sire." Again :  "  The  Greek  particle,  translated  so  that, 
sometimes  denotes  design  ;  and  if,  in  this  sense,  it  is  to  be 
here  understood,  the  aposle's  meaning  is,  that  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit,  in  the  believer  is  vouchsafed  to  counter- 
act and  frustrate  his  sinful  inclinations.  This  we  prefer, 
as  being  most  agreeable  to  the  apostle's  assurance  ex- 
pressed in  the  previous  verse.  If  it  denotes  merely  the 
result  eventually,  nothing  more  can  be  inferred  from  it, 
than  that  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  which  generates  a 
holy  inclination,  is  counteracted  by  corrupt  desires  and  af- 
fections, so  that  it  does  not  issue  in  the  accomplishment 
of  that  to  which  he  was  inclined."  The  result  of  all  this 
explanation  is  as  follows  :  I  have  a  "  choice  or  purpose" 
to  do  good ;  that  choice  or  purpose  is  influenced  by  my 
*' affections  or  feelings  of  desire,"  or  "a  holy  inclination  ;" 
this  "  holy  inclination"  is  generated  by  the  Holy  Spirit : 
and  yet  this  "  choice  or  purpose,"  prompted  by  "  affec- 
tions or  feelings  of  desire,"  or  by  "  holy  inclination"  gene- 
rated by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  counteracted  by  mere  volitions, 
originating  with  themselves,  having  no  cause  or  foundation 
in  my  nature,  or  any  thing  "  belonging"  or  "  cleaving"  to 
it.  Surely  these  voluntary  exercises  must  be  powerful 
indeed,  thus  to  spring  forth,  self-created,  and  overcome 
other  voluntary  exercises,  which  one  would  suppose  to  be 
equally  powerful  with  themselves,  and  at  the  same  time 
prompted  by  holy  inclinations  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  it  would  be  doing  injustice  to  Mr.  D.  and  our  read- 
ers, to  make  the  impression,  that  he  considers  that  these 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  89 

depraved  volitions  are  wholly  uncaused.  He  remarks, 
"  Wherever  we  discover  uniform  results — a  series  of  cor- 
responding actions,  all  standing  in  the  same  relation  to 
one  specific  substance,  we  insensibly  assume  the  exist- 
ence of  some  unvarying  cause." — p.  250.  Again:  "That 
there  is  some  appropriate  cause  of  depravity,  all  admit." — 
p.  249. 

He  proceeds  to  assign  the  cause  : — "  Of  the  precise  na- 
ture of  this,  it  is  obvious  that  we  must  be  ignorant,  as  we 
are  of  ail  causes  whatever.  This  is  not  in  itself,  how- 
ever, a  sufficient  reason  for  denying  that  there  is,  or  may 
be,  such  a  thing.  When  we  see  effects  uniformly  result- 
ing, we  attribute  them  to  the  operation  of  some  efficient 
agency.  We  begin  with  God  himself,  and  apprehend  his 
divine  agency  as  the  prime  cause,  and  thence  proceed, 
through  all  the  different  uniform  phenomena,  or  results 
arising,  which  fall  under  our  observation,  apprehending 
some  immediate  efficient  agency,  which  remains  uniformly 
the  same.  This  we  call  by  various  names  ;  sometimes  a 
law,  sometimes  a  constitution  of  God,  sometimes  a  princi- 
ple; it  is  indeed  of  little  consequence  which." — Ibid. 

There  is  no  danger  of  misapprehending  this  language. 
"  The  prime  cause"  of  these  "  effects  uniformly  resulting" 
is  "  divine  agency."  But  there  must  be  an  "  immediate" 
cause  ;  and  that  is  "  a  constitution  of  God.''''  Thus  Mr.  D. 
denies  that  men  are  "  inclined"  to  sin  by  "  an  innate  pro- 
pensity," for  the  purpose  of  attributing  their  vicious  actions 
to  "  divine  agency,"  operating  by  a  divine  "  constitution." 

Leaving  the  reader  to  decide,  for  himself,  where  this 
theory  locates  the  blame  of  depravity,  we  pass  on  to  re- 
mark, that  it  only  varies  and  increases  the  difficulty  arising 
out  of  the  text  under  consideration.  It  presents  the  great 
Author  of  good  as  striving,  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  prevent 
depraved  exercises,  and  at  the  same  time  acting  as  the 
prime  agent  in  causing  them.     For  the  honour  of  God,  we 


90  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

would  prefer  the  supposition,  unphilosophical  as  it  is,  that 
these  mysterious  and  powerful  volitions  are  wholly  un- 
caused. 

Will  it  be  said,  that  the  term  "  flesh,"  as  used  in  this 
text,  has  reference  to  the  body  and  its  appetites,  and  that 
the  meaning  is,  that  the  Spirit,  and  the  desires  it  origi- 
nates, maintain  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  do  good,  on  ac- 
count of  the  opposition  from  the  body  ?  That  would  be  to 
assert  the  doctrine  of  physical  depravity  to  some  purpose 
— to  locate  depravity  in  the  animal  nature. 

But  such  an  interpretation  would  be  exploded  by  a  pa- 
rallel passage  : — "  Now  the  works  of  the  flesh  are  mani- 
fest, which  are  these  :  adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness, 
lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emu- 
lations, wrath,  strife,  seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  mur- 
ders, drunkenness,  revellings,  and  such  like."  Many  of 
the  works  of  the  flesh,  as  stated  here,  are  evidently  men- 
tal exercises  ;  plainly  showing  that  the  meaning  of  the 
term  "  flesh,"  when  used  as  synonymous  with  the  term 
depravity,  is  not  to  be  restricted  to  the  corporeal  economy. 

This  text  also  shows,  that  "  the  flesh"  is  something  dis- 
tinct from  mere  voluntary  action.  It  works,  and  these 
exercises  are  the  "  works  of  the  flesh."  The  flesh  and 
the  works  of  the  flesh  are  placed  in  opposition  to  the 
Spirit  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit.  The  principle  of  inter- 
pretation which  would  resolve  the  flesh  into  voluntary 
exercises  would  make  a  similar  disposal  of  the  Spirit.  In 
either  case  the  interpretation  would  be  absurd,  because  a 
voluntary  action  is  itself  a  work.  We  should  have  the 
works  of  the  works  and  \h.e  fruits  of  the  fruit. 

Again :  the  actual  transgression  of  the  law  is  denomi- 
nated walking  after  the  flesh  in  opposition  to  walking  after 
the  Spirit.  "  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation 
to  them  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  after 
flesh  but  after  the  Spirit."     But  if  the  depravity  which  the 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  91 

word  "  flesh"  represents,  consists  in  walking,  t!ie  apostle's 
language  is  unintelligible.  It  must  be  acknowledged  to 
consist  in  an  operative  principle,  to  which  actual  trans- 
gression is  referred,  as  its  source. 

Will  it  be  pretended  that  the  term  "  flesh"  is  used  in 
these  passages  to  denote  our  essential  nature,  including 
merely  our  original,  constitutional  faculties  of  body  and 
mind,  and  not  to  any  principle  of  depravity  apart  from 
them,  and  which  may  or  may  not  adhere  to  them  ?  That 
the  term  is  frequently  so  used  is  not  denied.  But  to  sup- 
pose this  to  be  its  meaning,  in  the  instances  under  con- 
sideration, would  be  to  encounter  greater  difficulties  than 
those  intended  to  be  avoided.  "  The  flesh,"  we  are  told, 
"lusteth  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the 
flesh."  Walking  after  the  flesh  is  condemned.  And  we 
are  notified  that  "  they  that  are  in  Christ  have  crucified 
the  flesh  with  its  affections  and  lusts,"  and  that  "  they  that 
are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God."  But  is  there  any 
such  irreconcilable  hostility  between  our  original  consti- 
tution and  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  If  He  who  created  this  con- 
stitution, and  invested  it  with  its  original  powers,  approved 
of  it,  can  it  be  at  variance  with  his  law,  and  invariably 
displeasing  to  him,  for  us  to  walk  in  accordance  with  that 
constitution  ?  Must  we  "  crucify,"  that  is,  do  violence  to 
our  essential  nature  to  secvire  the  approbation  of  God  1 
May  we  not,  with  the  strictest  accuracy,  inquire  whether 
sin  does  not  consist  in  acting  contrary  to  the  laws  of  our 
original,  essential  constitution  1 

Whatever,  then,  may  be  the  nature  of  human  depravity, 
it  evidently  consists  in  something  besides  voluntary  exer- 
cises. 

Is  it  not  presented  in  this  light  by  those  passages 
which  personify  it  and  style  it  "  the  old  man  ?"  "  That 
ye  put  off"  concerning  the  former  conversation,  the  old 
man,  which  is  corrupt  according  to  the  deceitful  lusts. 


92  NEW  DIVIXITY DEPRAVITY. 

and  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  mind,"  Eph.  iv,  22. 
"  Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him, 
that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth 
we  should  not  serve  sin,"  Romans  vi,  6.  Here  is  a  plain 
distinction  between  "  the  old  man  which  is  corrupt,"  and 
the  "  former  conversation."  To  suppose  that  the  old  man 
signifies  the  former  course  of  life,  would  be  to  make  these 
expressions  synonymous.  The  sense  would  then  be,  that 
ye  put  off  concerning  the  former  conversation,  the  former 
conversation.  To  the  existence  and  life  of  the  old  man, 
actual  transgression  is  evidently  attributed,  and  the  result 
of  his  being  "  crucified"  is,  that  we  do  not  "  serve  sin," 
that  is,  do  not  commit  actual  transgression. 

Again  :  the  doctrine  that  all  depravity  consists  in  volun- 
tary exercises,  is  at  variance  with  those  scriptures  which 
speak  of  depravity  and  holiness  under  the  ideas  of  bondage 
and  freedom.  They  constitute  a  numerous  class.  But 
what  bondage  to  depravity  can  there  be,  if  it  consists  alto- 
gether in  voluntary  exercises  ?  What  greater  freedom  can 
a  man  have,  at  any  time,  than  when  he  knows  no  con- 
straint but  his  own  volitions  ? 

It  is  also  at  variance  with  those  inspired  declarations 
which  represent  the  Holy  Spirit's  influences  as  necessary 
to  overcome  and  remove  depravity.  Any  other  means 
which  suspend  voluntary  action  will  do  the  work  as  effec- 
tually. Let  the  most  depraved  man  be  put  to  sleep,  and 
he  is  as  free  from  depravity  as  the  Saviour  himself.  This 
conclusion  is  as  inevitable  as  it  is  absurd :  unless  we  are 
required  to  believe  that  a  man  is  engaged  in  voluntary  and 
accountable  action  while  he  is  asleep.  And  it  would  be  a 
somewhat  curious  speculation  to  inquire,  what  would  be- 
come of  a  man  if  he  were  to  die  in  that  condition,  which  is 
certainly  a"  possible  case.  Would  he  go  to  heaven,  or  to 
hell  ?  If  to  the  latter  place,  there  woidd  be  the  phenome- 
non of  a  man  going  to  hell  without  any  depravity. 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  93 

CHAPTER  VII. 

DEPRAVITY    CONTINUED. 

The  doctrine  v/hich  we  oppose,  evidently  leads  to  a 
most  amis  crip  tural,  absurd,  and  pernicious  distinction  be- 
tween the  moral  character  of  the  actor  and  his  actions. 
If  depravity  consists  solely  in  voluntary  action,  we  have 
only  to  contemplate  man  as  distinct  from  his  actions,  and 
no  depravity  can  be  affirmed  of  him.  Depravity  belongs 
to  his  actions,  not  to  his  person,  or  constitution.  His  ac- 
tions may  be  depraved  ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is 
depraved.  This  consequence  is  so  contrary  to  Scripture 
and  reason,  that  one  would  suppose  it  sufficient  to  con- 
demn the  theory,  in  the  estimate  of  all  its  advocates.  But 
it  is  not.  They  have  seen  the  consequence,  and  frequently 
asserted  it.  It  is  included  in  many  of  their  statements  of 
the  doctrine.  Mr.  Duffield  plainly  asserts  it,  when  he 
says,  "  We  are  infallibly  directed,  in  making  our  estimate 
of  human  depravity,  to  have  exclusive  regard  to  the  acts 
and  exercises  of  the  human  soul."  Here  a  distinction  is 
made  between  the  soul  and  its  acts  and  exercises ;  and  it 
is  affirmed  that,  in  making  an  estimate  of  depravity,  the 
soul  is  to  be  excluded  from  the  account,  and  the  regard 
confined  to  its  actions.  Again :  he  says,  "  There  shall 
take  place  those  acts,  of  which  alone  we  can  predicate 
moral  depravity."  In  his  chapter  on  "  the  original  of  hu- 
man depravity,"  he  charges  the  advocates  of  the  opposite 
doctrine  with  predicating  depravity  of  "  being,"  or  "simple 
existence  ;"  and  affects  to  prove  that  it  cannot  be  affirmed 
of  "  being ;"  and  expresses  his  surprise  "  that  it  should  be 
made  a  question,  whether  sin  may  be  predicated  of  being, 
or  simple  existence."  It  would  be  silly  enough,  to  be 
sure,  to  affirm  depravity  of  simple,  abstract  being,  for  that 
would  imply  that  all  beings  are  depraved.     But  this  his 


94  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

opponents  had  not  done.  They  had  not  even  started  the 
question  which  excites  his  surprise.  They  had  affirmed 
depravity  of  human  beings,  and  this  is  obviously  the  doc- 
trine against  which  his  objection  is  aimed.  It  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at,  however,  that  he  involves  such  a  sentiment 
in  the  mists  of  ambiguity,  by  confoimding  a  particular  class 
of  beings  with  being  itself. 

Mr.  Finney  says,  "  From  this  subject  you  can  see  that 
the  wicked  conduct  of  sinners  is  no  proof  that  their  nature 
is  sinful P  The  author  of  "  Views  in  Theology"  affirms  it 
broadly,  when  he  says,  "  No  depravity,  taint,  corruption, 
nor  any  other  defect  whatever  of  that  nature,  pertains  to 
the  constitution  of  man." 

Mr.  Barnes  makes  this  distinction  appear  very  con- 
spicuous in  his  comment  on  St.  Paul's  declaration,  that 
"  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  Grod,"  &c.,  where  he 
tells  us  that  it  does  not  mean  "  the  mind  itself,  the  intel- 
lect, or  the  will ;  it  does  not  suppose  that  the  mind  or  soul 
is  physically  depraved,  or  opposed  to  God."  That  it  "  does 
not  mean  that  the  soul  itself  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  but 
the  minding  of  those  things  is  hostile  to  his  law." 

It  is  not  necessary  to  question  the  correctness  of  this 
criticism.  The  language  of  the  apostle  may  signify  "  the 
minding  of  those  things."  But  if  he  does  not  expressly 
predicate  depravity  and  inability  of  the  "  mind  itself,"  or 
"  of  man,"  in  this  place,  he  does  in  other  places ;  and  what 
he  here  says,  clearly  implies  the  depravity  of  the  "  mind 
itself,"  &c.  Can  that  mind  or  soul  be  otherwise  than  de- 
praved, which  is  constantly  performing  depraved  actions  ? 
Can  it  be  otherwise  than  at  enmity  with  God,  when  all 
its  intelligent,  voluntary  exercises  are  at  enmity  with  him  1 
But  the  effect  of  this  comment  is,  obviously,  to  restrict,  as 
a  question  of  doctrine,  the  depravity  and  inability  to  the 
actions  of  the  mind.  It  is  adopted  by  New  School  writers, 
generally,  to  guard  the  doctrines  of  natural  ability,  and 


NEW  DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY.  95 

depravity,  as  consisting  solely  in  action,  to  whicli  the  text 
is  equally  fatal,  whether  it  expressly  affirms,  or  merely 
implies,  that  the  "  mind  itself"  is  carnal,  and  at  eimtiity 
with  God. 

We  shall  endeavour  to  make  good  our  condemnation  of 
this  consequence,  and  the  theory  to  which  it  belongs,  by 
first  bringing  it  in  contact  with  the  Scriptures.  The 
apostle  writes  to  the  Philippians  : — "  For  many  walk,  of 
whom  I  have  told  you  often,  and  now  tell  you,  even  weep- 
ing, that  they  are  the  enemies  of  the  cross  of  Christ; 
whose  end  is  destruction,  whose  god  is  their  belly,  and 
whose  glory  is  their  shame,  who  mind  earthly  things." 
Here  depravity  is  predicated  not  only  of  minding  earthly 
things,  but  of  those  who  mind  them — of  the  "  mind  itself" 
— ^the  man — the  being.  The  result  of  an  attempt  to  con- 
form this  text  to  the  doctrine,  that  depravity  belongs  solely 
to  action,  would  be  strikingly  ludicrous.  Again  :  the 
apostle  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  Are  ye  not  carnal,  and 
walk  as  men  ?"  How  ridiculous  would  be  the  attempt  to 
interpret  this  text  on  the  theory  which  predicates  de- 
pravity solely  of  action ! 

This  theory  is  most  unequivocally  contradicted  by  the 
reasonings  of  the  Saviour,  on  human  actions  and  their 
causes  : — "  Beware  of  false  prophets,  which  come  to  you 
in  sheep's  clothing,  but  inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves. 
Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits.  Do  men  gather 
grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of  thistles  ?  Even  so  every  good 
tree  bringeth  forth  good  fruit ;  but  a  corrupt  tree  bringeth 
forth  evil  fruit.  A  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit, 
neither  can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit.  Where- 
fore by  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them,"  Matt.  vii.  The 
purport  of  this  reasoning  is,  plainly,  that  acts  and  exercises 
derive  their  moral  quality  from  the  moral  qualities  of  the 
actor,  and  likewise  furnish  the  criterion  by  which  his 
moral  principles  are  to  be  judged.     Are  the  actions  de- 


96  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

praved  1  It  follows  that  the  source  of  them  is  depraved. 
Is  the  man  depraved  ?  Then  will  his  actions  be  depraved. 
What  a  glaring  discrepancy  there  is  between  the  oracles 
of  Christ,  and  the  speculations  of  these  theorists,  Avho, 
with  the  New  Testament  in  their  hands,  and  professing 
to  be  servants  and  ministers  of  Christ,  tell  us  that  "  there 
is  nothing  in  man  which  constitutes  a  tendency  to  sin" — 
"  which  forms  any  more  certainty  or  probability  that  he 
will  exercise  that  species  of  action  which  is  evil,  than  that 
which  is  morally  excellent" — and  that  "  sinful  actions  do 
not  imply  a  sinful  nature." 

The  Saviour  furnishes  a  severe  rebuke  to  this  incon- 
sistency, in  his  reply  to  those  who  attributed  his  casting 
out  devils  to  the  agency  of  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  devils. 
After  showing  the  absurdity  of  their  charge,  he  says, — • 
"  Either  make  the  tree  good,  and  his  fruit  good,  or  else 
make  the  tree  corrupt,  and  his  fruit  corrupt ;  for  the  tree 
is  known  by  his  fruit.  O  generation  of  vipers !  how  can 
ye,  being  evil,  speak  good  things  ?  For  out  of  the  abun- 
dance of  the  heart  the  mouth  speaketh.  A  good  man  out 
of  the  good  treasure  of  his  heart  bringeth  forth  good  things ; 
and  an  evil  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure  of  his  heart  bring- 
eth forth  evil  things." 

Who  does  not  perceive  that  the  doctrine  and  distinction 
which  we  oppose,  destroy  the  Saviour's  maxim,  "  The 
tree  is  known  by  its  fruits,"  and  contradict  all  liis  reason- 
ings ?  They  make  the  evil  quality  pertain  exclusively  to 
the  fruit.  They  are  at  variance  with  the  whole  tenor  of 
Scripture,  which  constantly  affirms  depravity  of  man,  and 
contemplates  it  as  the  source  of  his  evil  actions. 

Apply  this  distinction  to  the  perpetrator  of  crime,  in  any 
of  its  varied  forms,  and  while  it  predicates  depravity  of 
his  actions,  it  leaves  himself  without  condemnation.  Take, 
for  instance,  the  manufacturer  and  tralTicker  in  ardent 
spirits  as  a  drink  who  is  fully  apprized  of  all  the  mischief 


NEW  DIVINITY — 'DEPRAVITY.  97 

he  is  doing.  His  business  may  be  pronounced  immoral, 
but  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  immoral  or  depraved.  The 
immorality  belongs  exclusively  to  the  business.  This  dis- 
tinction was  actually  so  applied,  and  this  doctrine  main- 
tained, in  the  Pennsylvania  Temperance  Convention  in  the 
spring  of  1835,  by  one  of  the  authors  referred  to  in  this 
work,  in  the  debate  on  the  resolution  asserting  the  im- 
morality of  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  ardent  spirits  as 
a  drink. 

According  to  this  doctrine  we  have  only  to  contemplate 
the  murderer  apart  from  his  actions,  and  we  must  pro- 
nounce him  perfectly  free  from  depravity.  Let  his  volun- 
tary exercises  be  suspended  by  sleep,  for  instance,  and 
this  is  undeniably  the  case.  Let  him  die  in  this  condi- 
tion, and  he  dies  free  from  depravity,  although  the  blood 
may  yet  reek  on  his  murderous  blade.  Or  let  him  wake 
from  his  sleep,  and  whether  he  has  any  depravity  after  he 
wakes,  or  not,  will  depend  on  his  voluntarily  performing 
depraved  exercises,  which  he  has  a  natural  ability  to  de- 
cline. This'  is  a  specimen  of  the  moral  philosophy  which 
grows  out  of  New  School  theology. 

It  has  been  objected  to  this  theory,  that  it  is  at  variance 
with  the  doctrine  of  total  depravity,  and  its  advocates  have 
endeavoured  to  remove  the  objection.  One  thing,  how- 
ever is  certain,  that  it  admits  of  no  such  thing  as  partial 
depravity.  There  must  either  be  total  depravity  or  none 
at  all ;  for  as  the  depravity  of  a  man  consists  solely  in  his 
actions,  his  present  action  must,  at  any  given  period  of  his 
life,  constitute  his  present  depravity.  Whether  it  be  total 
or  partial,  will  depend  on,  whether  the  volition  is  partially 
or  wholly  at  variance  with  the  law  which  it  transgresses. 
Now  the  volitions  of  the  mind  are  successive,  and  no  mat- 
ter how  rapidly  they  may  succeed  each  other,  the  mind 
puts  forth  but  one  volition  at  a  time.  Whether  that  voli- 
tion is  partially  in  obedience  to,  and  partially  at  variance 

5 


98  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

with,  the  law,  will  depend  on  the  law  itself.  If  the  law 
partly  enjoins,  and  partly  forbids  it,  this  will  be  the  case. 
But  such  a  supposition  respecting  the  law  of  God  would 
be  absurd.  It  would  make  it  grossly  contradictory.  But 
if  the  law  is  totally  at  variance  with  the  unholy  voli- 
tion, it  must  constitute  total  depravity.  The  moment 
there  is  the  least  variation  from  total  depravity,  it  is  to- 
tally absent. 

If  it  be  objected  to  this  reasoning,  that  one  single  totally 
depraved  action  does  not  constitute  total  depravity,  we 
would  ask  how  many  such  actions  are  necessary  to  con- 
stitute it  ? 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  that  it  is  not  every  unholy  voli- 
tion that  constitutes  total  depravity.  If  there  be  some  par- 
ticular volitions  of  which  alone  total  depravity  can  be 
predicated,  it  will  be  necessary  to  know  what  they  are,  in 
order  to  determine  whether  an  individual  be  totally  de- 
praved or  not,  as  his  character  in  this  respect  will  de- 
pend on  his  having  performed  or  declined  them. 

Take  this  theory  of  depravity  then,  along  with  the  doc- 
trine of  natural  ability,  from  which  it  springs,  and  it  will 
follow  infallibly,  that  a  man  may  change  from  total  de- 
pravity to  holiness,  and  from  holiness  to  total  depravity, 
twenty  times  a  day,  and  as  much  oftener  as  he  pleases. 

But  the  great  and  crowning  objection  is,  that  it  denies 
human  depravity  altogether.  It  has  been  shown,  by  the 
authority  of  Scripture,  that  it  consists  in  something  in  man, 
to  which  sinful  voluntary  exercises  are  referred  as  their 
source  ;  and  the  popular  and  prevailing  apprehensions  of 
mankind  are  in  accordance  with  the  philosophy  of  Scrip- 
ture. Now,  if  depravity  does  not  consist  in  some  quality, 
principle,  propensity,  or  disposition,  belonging  to  th» 
actor,  which  may  be  contemplated  apart  from  his  actions, 
and  which  operates  as  the  cause  of  his  putting  forth  un- 
holy, instead  of  holy  exercises,  it  will  follow,  inevitably 


I 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  99 

that  there  is  nothing  in  man  which  makes  it  probable  that  he 
will  pursue  one  course  of  moral  action  rather  than  another. 
Suppose  two  men  sleeping,  or  in  a  state  of  suspended  ani- 
mation. According  to  this  doctrine,  there  is  nothing  in 
either  of  these  men,  no  matter  what  their  previous  cha- 
racter and  conduct  may  have  been,  on  which  we  are  au- 
thorized to  build  the  slightest  calculation  as  to  what  course 
they  will  pursue  when  they  are  awake,  or  restored.  This 
consequence,  sufficient,  one  would  suppose,  to  condemn 
any  theory  which  could  be  shown  to  lead  to  it,  or  involve  it, 
is  not  only  fairly  deducible  from  the  premises,  but  is  actu- 
ally adopted,  and  made  a  part  of  the  theory  in  which  it 
ori-ginates.  It  is  broadly  asserted  in  the  quotation  with 
which  we  closed  the  fifth  chapter. 

Let  us  proceed  to  test  it  by  the  common  sense  and  uni- 
versal practice  of  mankind.  Suppose  one  of  these  men 
to  be  a  useful  and  unexceptionable  minister  of  the  gospel; 
and  the  "other  a  vile  penitentiary  convict,  who  has  escaped, 
by  united  force  and  treachery,  from  his  prison.  One  is 
now  just  as  far  from  depravity  as  the  other.  And  were 
this  theory  correct,  we  should  do  the  convict  an  injury  by 
withholding  from  him  the  confidence  which  we  award  to 
the  minister.  Why  ?  Because  it  would  be  withheld  on 
the  supposition  that  there  is  something  in  him — something 
belonging  to  his  mind — something  apart  from  his  actions — • 
some  disposition,  propensity,  or  taste,  which  renders  it 
highly  probable,  if  not  certain,  that  he  will,  if  he  has  op- 
portunity, take  improper  liberties  with  the  rights  and  pro- 
perty of  others,  when  he  begins  to  act  again. 

But  will  the  teachers  of  New  Divinity  undertake  to  per- 
suade the  community  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  thief 
which  constitutes  a  tendency  to  thieving  ? — nothing  which 
forms  any  more  certainty  or  probability  that  he  will  act 
dishonestly,  than  that  he  will  act  with  the  most  scrupulous 
honesty  ?— that  it  would  be  doing  injustice  to  him,  to  deny 


100  NEW  DIVINITY— DEPRAVITY. 

him  the  confidence  we  award  to  those  whose  integrity  has 
never  been  questioned  ?  Do  not  men  universally  act  on  the 
opposite  principle  ?  Are  we  not  constantly  selecting  our 
society,  and  pronouncing  our  judgments,  on  the  ground 
that  men  possess  various  moral  principles,  apart  from,  and 
anterior  to,  their  acting,  which  lay  the  foundation  of  pro- 
bability that  they  will  act  honourably  or  dishonourably, 
virtuously  or  viciously,  when  placed  under  certain  circum- 
stances ?  Would  the  merchant  as  soon  trust  his  merchan- 
dise to  the  noted  swindler  as  to  the  man  of  tried  honesty? 
This  new-fashioned  theory  of  depravity  is  a  perfect  out- 
rage on  common  sense  and  universal  experience.  It  is  a 
wholesale  denial  of  hiunan  depravity,  as  it  is  generally 
imderstood. 

Will  it  be  argued,  that  habit  makes  the  difference  in 
question  1 — ^that  one  man  has  contracted  habits  of  dis- 
honesty, and  that  this  is  the  cause  of  his  acting  viciously? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  habit  has  a  very  powerful  in- 
fluence on  volition ;  but  this  solution,  if  admitted,  would 
be  as  fatal  to  the  doctrine  that  all  depravity  consists  in 
voluntary  exercises,  as  it  would  to  the  doctrine  of  an 
hereditary  and  constitutional  propensity.  It  places  habit 
"  back"  of  moral  exercises,  and  assigns  it  as  their  cause. 
Besides,  habit  is  something  which  affects  the  faculties 
— ^the  constitution  of  man.  It  is  something  which  belongs 
to  him,  and  abides  with  him,  sleeping  and  waking.  If, 
therefore,  we  resolve  depravity  into  habit,  we  make  it  to 
consist  in  something  in  man,  which  is  distinct  from,  and 
the  cause  of,  depraved  action. 


NEW  DIVINITY — DEPRAVITY.  W 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

DEPRAVITY    CONTINUED. 

Were  the  Scriptures  silent  on  the  subject,  a  strong  pre- 
sumption  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  inherent  and  consti- 
tutional depravity  would  arise,  from  the  acknowledged 
facts  that  the  first  moral  exercises  of  every  individual  ot 
our  race  are  vicious— and  that  their  actions  continue  to  be 
vicious,  until  depravity  is  arrested  in  its  course  by  the 
power  of  grace.  How  does  it  happen  that  the  »  children 
of  men  go  astray  from  the  womb,  speaking  Ues  V  How 
shall  we  account  for  this  universal  transgression  of  the  law 
of  God,  commencing  with  the  first  accountable  act,  with- 
out admitting  an  innate  principle  of  depravity  ? 

It  is  said,  in  reply,  that  there  is  no  more  difficulty  m 
accounting  for  this  universal  wickedness,  without  suppos- 
ing  an.  innate  principle  of  depravity,  than  there  is  m  ac- 
counting for  the  sinning  of  our  first  ancestors  without  it. 
But  the  cases  are  widely  difi-erent  Adam  sinned  once 
without  it,  under  circumstances  of  powerful  temptation, 
after  having  lived  for  some  time  in  perfect  obedience. 
Now  all  men  sin  constantly,  and  from  the  begmmng. 
There  is  no  obedience  to  God  until  regeneration  takes 
place.  The  task  then  is  not  that  of  accounting  for  one 
single  sinful  volition  without  previous  depravity— a  task 
not  without  its  difficulties-but  for  a  long  and  unbroken 
series  of  volitions,  aU  in  a  wrong  direction,  commencing 
with  the  individual's  first  accountable  exercise  :  and  aU 
this  in  despite  of  powerful  opposing  influences,  and  the 
strontrest  motives  to  the  contrary  course. 

But  strong  as  this  argument  is,  we  are  not  dependant 
upon  it.  The  Scriptures,  as  we  have  seen,  settle  the 
question  most  decisively ;  and  we  prefer  to  rest  oui  con- 
victions  on  their  decision. 


102  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

It  is  contended  by  the  advocates  of  New  Divinity,  that, 
if  depravity  consists  not  merely  in  voluntary  action — if  it 
affects  the  constitution  of  the  actor,  it  must  be  2i  faculty — 
an  essential  attribute — a  part  of  our  constitution,  &c.  The 
objection  is  presented  in  an  endless  variety  of  phraseology, 
all,  however,  conveying  the  same  idea. 

That  depravity  does  not  consist  solely  in  action,  has,  we 
think,  been  clearly  shown.  It  is  equally  clear  that  it  is 
not  a  faculty — an  essential  attribute  of  our  nature — a  part 
of  our  constitution.  The  true  doctrine  lies  somewhere 
between  these  extreme  points. 

But  the  doctrine  which  we  have  advanced  does  not  lead 
to  the  consequence  alleged.  There  is  no  necessity  for 
adopting  the  voluntary  exercise  theory,  in  order  to  escape 
it.  Depravity  may  be  something  which  inheres  in  the 
soul,  and  constitutes  a  principle  of  action,  without  consti- 
tuting a  faculty  of  the  soul.  This  position  may  be  illus- 
trated by  a  reference  to  bodily  disease,  on  which  the  in- 
spired writers  rely  for  their  most  striking  illustrations  of 
depravity.  There  is  a  remarkable  analogy  between  them. 
But  who  will  maintain  that  bodily  disease  consists  solely 
in  action — that  the  body  itself  is  not  diseased  ?  To  main- 
tain such  a  supposition,  would  be  to  present  to  our  con- 
templation the  phenomenon  of  a  healthy  body  in  constantly 
diseased  action.  Disease  not  only  deranges  the  action 
of  the  bodily  organs,  but  affects  the  organs  themselves. 
The  body  itself  is  diseased  ;  and  yet  no  one  supposes  that 
the  disease  is  a  faculty  of  the  body — that  it  is  a  part 
of  the  bodily  constitution.  The  body  had  all  its  parts  and 
attributes  previous  to  its  becoming  diseased.  It  has  them 
all  after  the  disease  is  removed.  The  difference  between 
its  past  and  present  condition,  is  this :  then,  it  was  dis- 
eased, and  was  disqualified  for  vigorous  action,  or  wholly 
disabled  ;  now,  it  is  sound,  and  capable  of  the  appropriate 
and  vigorous  exertion  of  all  its  faculties. 


NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY.  103 

So  it  is  with  depravity.  It  is  something  which  inheres 
in  our  moral  constitution,  and  causes  a  deranged  action  of 
its  powers  ;  but  it  is  not  a  faculty — it  is  not  an  essential 
attribute — it  is  not  a  part  of  the  constitution.  Remove  it, 
and  the  soul  has  the  same  faculties  and  constituents  it  had 
before.  The  difference  caused,  is  simply  this :  the  soul 
is  relieved  of  a  bias,  a  propensity,  which  disqualified  it  for 
obedience  to  God,  and  held  its  powers  in  thraldom  to 
vice. 

Again  :  there  are  bodily  diseases  which  are  called  con- 
stitutional. They  are  supposed  to  be  transmitted  from 
parents  to  children,  and  yet  no  one  pretends  to  consider 
them  a  part  of  the  constitution.  The  objection  depends 
for  all  its  plausibility  on  the  ambiguity  of  the  term  con- 
stitutional. Indeed,  ambiguous  terms  are  the  weapons  of 
New  Divinity  warfare.  They  constitute  its  heaviest  artil- 
lery. That  which  is  a  part  of  the  constitution  is  cer- 
tainly constitutional ;  but  it  does  not  follow,  that  whatever 
is  constitutional  must  therefore  be  a  part  of  the  consti- 
tution. 

But  the  overwhelming  objection  to  our  view  of  depravity 
is,  that  it  teaches  the  doctrine  of  "  physical  depravity." 
Numerous  statements  of  the  doctrine  are  quoted,  and 
commented  upon,  by  different  New  School  writers,  and 
the  conclusion  is  brandished  with  formidable  menace, 
that  "  the  doctrine  taught  is  that  of  physical  depravity." 
It  is  supposed  that  it  is  thus  reduced  to  an  absurdity. 
The  term  "  physical"  occurs  with  endless  reiteration  in 
the  arguments  of  New  Divinity,  and  seems  to  be  relied  on 
as  possessing  some  magic  influence,  before  which,  opposi- 
tion is  expected  to  cower. 

It  is  not  characteristic  of  truth  to  be  terrified  by  a  word. 
We  shall  therefore  venture  to  encounter  this  awful  trisyl- 
lable. The  term  "  physical"  is  ambiguous,  and  this  is  the 
secret  of  its  importance.     It  is  sometimes  used  as  synony- 


104  NEW  DIVINITY DEPRAVITY. 

mous  with  material  or  corporeal,  and  in  other  instances  to 
signify  whatever  belongs  essentially  to  the  constitution  ot 
our  whole  nature.  The  advocates  of  the  theory  of  de- 
pravity which  we  oppose,  make  it  represent  every  thing 
except  voluntary  action.  They  insist  upon  it,  that  de- 
pravity must  consist  solely  in  voluntary  action,  or  it  is 
physical.  These  are,  with  them,  the  only  alternatives. 
Now  it  is  plain,  that  whether  we  teach  the  doctrine  of 
physical  depravity  or  not,  will  depend  on  the  definition  of 
the  term,  which  may  be  adopted.  If  we  take  it  in  the  sense 
in  which  these  controversialists  use  it,  we  must  of  course 
adopt  their  theory,  or  submit  to  be  stigmatized  as  holding 
the  doctrine  of  physical  depravity. 

But,  how  is  it  that  this  phrase  comes  to  be  so  revolt- 
ing ?  Why  do  we  shrink  from  the  charge  of  holding  and 
.  teaching  the  doctrine  of  physical  depravity  ?  Some  of  the 
ancient  philosophers  held,  that  depravity  resides  altogether 
in  the  corporeal  constitution — ^that  matter  is  essentially 
and  incurably  corrupt,  and  that  all  the  moral  aberrations 
of  the  soul  are  to  be  attributed  to  its  connection  with  mat- 
ter. Another  theory  of  physical  depravity,  we  are  told, 
represents  it  as  "  an  essential  attribute  of  the  soul" — "  a 
created  attribute  of  its  substance,  inhering  in,  and  con- 
tributing to  make  up  its  nature,  and  constitute  it  what 
it  is." 

Now  these  theories  of  depravity  are  justly  condemned. 
We  have  not  advanced  either  of  them.  If  the  term 
"  physical  depravity"  be  restricted  to  them,  we  have  not 
approximated  to  the  doctrine.  But  it  has  acquired,  in  the 
hands  of  New  Divinity,  a  new  signification.  Yet,  if  we 
must  bear  the  terrible  odium  inflicted  upon  us,  we  bear  it 
in  good  company.  We  have  shown  that  the  doctrine  thus 
stigmatized  is  the  doctrine  of  the  inspired  writers ;  and 
we  are  sure  of  this,  that,  if  St.  Paul  were  living,  these 
modem  theologists  might  assail  him  with  the  word  "  physi- 


NEW  DIVINITy-^DEPRA.VITT.  105 

cal"  until  their  organs  of  speech  should  fail,  or  their  re- 
sources of  ink  become  exhausted,  and  he  would  not  move 
an  inch  from  his  position. 

But,  taking  the  term  "  physical"  in  the  sense  of  our  op- 
ponents, we  cannot  see  but  that  they  are  as  deeply  involved 
in  the  difficulty  of  teaching  a  physical  depravity  as  our- 
selves. If  every  faculty  of  our  constitution  be  physical, 
and,  likewise,  every  inherent  principle  to  which  our  ac- 
tions are  referred  as  their  cause,  will  not  all  our  actions 
be  physical  ?  It  will  not  alter  the  case,  that  some  of  our 
actions  are  under  the  control  of  the  will,  and  therefore 
voluntary  ;  for  the  will  itself  is  a  physical  attribute.  They 
may  be  called  moral,  but  the  designation  will  serve  only 
to  distinguish  one  class  of  physical  actions  from  another 
— that  which  is  voluntary  from  that  virhich  is  involun- 
tary. The  truth  is  this  :  the  charge  of  physical  depravity, 
in  the  hands  of  these  men,  is  a  mere  bugbear.  It  is  re- 
torted upon  them  with  the  utmost  ease.  Moreover,  we 
find  examples  in  which  they  assert  the  doctrine  of  "  physi- 
cal depravity"  in  a  sense  in  which  we  utterly  reject  it. 
Mr.  Barnes  says,  in  his  note  on  Romans  vii,  23,  *'  The 
body  is  composed  of  many  members  ;  and  as  the  flesh  is 
regarded  as  the  sovu^ce  of  sin,  (verse  18,)  the  law  of  sin 
is  said  to  be  in  the  members,  that  is,  in  the  body  itself." 
This  is  physical  depravity,  unquestionably.  The  "  source 
of  sin,"  the  "  law  of  sin,"  is  in  "  the  body  itself. ''^  To 
this  frightful  extremity  is  Mr.  B.  pushed,  in  his  efforts  to 
interpret  the  oracles  of  God  in  accordance  with  the  doc- 
trine, that  the  "  soul  itself"  is  not  depraved. 

These  writers  are  chargeable  with  an  inconsistency  in 
the  use  of  language,  which  deserves  a  moment's  notice. 
They  are  constantly  writing  about  the  "  physical  nature," 
the  "  physical  constitution"  of  man.  We  are  incessantly- 
notified  by  them,  that  depravity  does  not  belong  to  the 
"  physical  constitution."     But,  if  every  thing  which  be- 

5* 


106  NEW  DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 

longs  in  any  way  to  man's  constitution  be  physical,  wliat 
other  nature  or  constitution  can  he  have  ?  They  may  as 
well  write  about  human  men  and  women,  as  about  man's 
"  physical  nature,"  if  he  has  no  other  nature.  But,  if  the 
nature,  or  constitution  of  man,  may  be  distinguished  into 
physical  and  moral,  as  such  phraseology  implies,  their 
objection  to  our  doctrine  of  depravity  is  entirely  obviated 
by  our  affirming  it  of  the  moral  constitution.  Mr.  Duffield 
speaks  of  the  "  moral  constitution,"  but  with  great  incon- 
sistency. What  he  means,  it  would  be  difficult  to  deter- 
mine, unless  he  considers  a  voluntary  act  to  be  a  consti- 
tution. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

HOLINESS. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability 
of  fallen  man  to  obey  God  leads  to  the  doctrine  that  all 
depravity  consists  in  voluntary  action,  and  that  this  doc- 
trine is  adopted  and  inculcated  by  the  advocates  of  this 
system.  It  requires  no  argument  to  show  that  this  view 
of  depravity  necessarily  implies  the  doctrine  that  all  holi- 
ness consists  in  voluntary  exercises. 

This  view  of  the  nature  of  holiness  they  have  likewise 
adopted.  The  attention  of  the  reader  is  asked  to  a  few 
citations  in  proof  of  this  assertion. 

Mr.  Finney,  in  his  sermon  on  "  Sinners  bound  to  change 
their  own  hearts,"  denies  that  regeneration  effects  any 
change  in  the  constitution,  or  implants  a  new  principle  or 
taste  in  the  soul  which  "may  be  characterized  as  holy. 
He  says, — 

"  All  holiness  in  God,  angels,  or  men,  must  be  volun- 
tary, or  it  is  not  holiness.     To  call  any  thing  that  is  a  part 


NEW  DIVINITY HOLINESS.  107 

of  the  mind  or  body,  holy — to  speak  of  a  holy  substance, 
unless  it  be  in  a  figurative  sense,  is  to  talk  nonsense. 
Holiness  is  virtue  ;  it  is  something  that  is  praiseworthy  ; 
it  cannot  therefore  be  a  part  of  the  created  substance  of 
body  or  mind,  but  must  consist  in  voluntary  obedience  to 
the  principles  of  eternal  righteousness." — p.  7. 

Again : — "  For  instance,  when  Adam  was  first  created, 
and  awoke  into  being,  before  he  had  obeyed  or  disobeyed 
his  Maker,  he  could  have  had  no  moral  character  at  all : 
he  had  exercised  no  affections,  no  desires,  nor  put  forth 
any  actions.  In  this  state  he  was  a  complete  moral  agent, 
and  in  this  respect  in  the  image  of  his  Maker,  but  as  yet 
could  have  no  moral  character ;  for  moral  character  can- 
not be  a  subject  of  creation,  but  attaches  to  voluntary 
action." 

Mr.  Duffieldj  speaking  of  the  graces  of  the  Spirit,  says, 
"  Now  all  these  are  voluntary  acts  and  exercises  of  the 
human  mind." 

"  It  is  philosophy,  based  on  a  false  physiology,  which 
comes  in  and  says,  the  Spirit  secures  the  exercise  of  these 
graces  by  infusing  grace,  or  by  putting  into  the  soul  a 
principle  of  life,  or  by  creating  a  disposition  for  holiness, 
which  principle  or  disposition  is  the  immediate  cause  of 
these  holy  exercises  of  mind  and  heart,  technically  called 
the  graces  of  the  Spirit." — p.  230. 

Again  :— "  Some  vague  and  mystic  notions  are  had 
about  disposition  and  habit  as  the  proper  philosophical 
cause  of  holy  exercises.  This  philosophical  cause  of  holy 
acts  and  exercises  is  itself  pronounced  holy,  as  every 
cause,  it  is  supposed,  must  possess  the  same  quality  or 
character  with  its  effects ;  and  in  the  production,  or  com- 
munication, or  lodgment,  or  creation  of  this  causal  some- 
thing, this  disposition  or  habit  in  the  human  soul,  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  it  is  alleged  consists  regeneration.  Power 
is  thus  given  to  the  regenerate  man  to  perform  holy  acts, 


lOd  NEW  DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 

and  thus  the  efficacious  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
resolved  into  a  mere  physical  efficiency !  And  all  the 
passages  of  Scripture  which  speak  of  his  power  in  this 
connection  are  explained  by  means  of  this  philosophical 
invention." — p.  511. 

Again  : — "  But  do  not  tell  us  that  the  Spirit  introduces 
into  the  heart  a  vital  jirinciple  or  sense,  a  spiritual  instinct 
or  holy  principle,  to  be  the  iminediate  cause  and  formal  rea- 
son of  holy  acts,  laid  by  creative  power  in  the  nature  of 
the  soul." — p.  226. 

And  in  another  place  he  says,  "  But  we  may  know  and 
trace  the  immediate  effects  of  his  (the  Spirit's)  agency, 
inasmuch  as  they  all  lie  in  our  voluntary  acts  and  exercises, 
of  which  we  are  distinctly  conscious." — p.  439. 

He  meets  with  a  difficulty  in  the  alleged  holiness  of 
Jesus  Christ  while  in  his  infant  state,  and  concludes  that 
the  holiness  which  characterized  him  at  that  time,  must 
have  been  of  a  different  kind  from  that  which  he  after- 
ward possessed. 

"  If  holiness  is  attributed  to  that  nature  in  its  unborn 
and  embryo  state,  we  certainly  cannot  suppose  that  it  is 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was  after  its  growth  into 
youth  and  manhood,  or  else  we  must  suppose  that  holi- 
ness as  a  personal  characteristic  consists  in  something- 
irrespective  of  the  acts  and  exercises  of  a  moral  being. 
For  the  holiness  of  a  being,  with  its  powers  developed, 
and  actively  excited,  must  be  very  different  from  that  of 
one  yet  destitute  of  such  powers." 

The  holiness  which  Mr.  D.  attributes  to  Jesus  Christ 
in  his  "  embryo  state,"  in  order  to  escape  the  alternative 
of  admitting  that  "  holiness  is  a  personal  characteristic," 
and  consists  in  something  which  may  exist  antecedent  to 
the  voluntary  "  acts  and  exercises  of  a  moral  being,"  is 
such  as  is  attributed  to  inanimate  things — for  instance,  to 
the  vessels  and  apartments  of  the  temple.     These  were 


NEW  DIVINITY— HOLINESS.  109 

holy  in  tie  sense  of  being  "  set  apart  as  permanently  and 
exclusively  appropriate  to  God.  In  this  sense  the  yet  un- 
conscious nature  of  Christ  may  be  denominated  holy." — 
p.  353. 

On  page  five  hundred  and  eighteen,  he  grants  that 
"  holy  exercises"  must  be  referred  to  some  cause,  but  de- 
nies that  the  cause  is  to  be  found  "  in  the  soul  itself,"  or 
that  it  is  "  some  disposition,  or  habit,  or  causal  something 
in  the  very  being."  He  ascribes  all  the  causation  to  ex- 
terior influences — to  the  "  Holy  Spirit"  operating  on  "owr 
constitutional  susceptibilities  by  means  of  the  truths  and 
facts  of  Scripture,"  the  holy  exercises  taking  their  charac- 
ter of  holiness,  not  from  any  internal  principle  of  holiness 
in  the  actor,  but  from  the  character  of  the  "  objects  excit- 
ing and  eliciting  them." 

He  argues  that  the  doctrine  of  an  inherent  principle  of 
holiness  in  the  soul,  operating  as  the  cause  of  holy  exer- 
cises, "  fobs  the  Spirit  of  his  glory,"  and  obscvures  "  his 
immediate  influence."  "  Shall  we,"  says  he,  "  thrust  the 
Spirit  back,  lose  sight  of  his  grace,  and  attribute  to  him 
the  mere  exercise  of  creative  power  in  this  marvellous 
work  of  converting  and  sanctifying  the  soul  ?  Shall  we 
give  glory  to  the  renovated  man,  and  inflate  him  with 
pride,  by  leading  him  to  believe  that  a  certain  act  of  God 
has  lodged  in  him  a  cause  of  holy  exercises  V — pp.  229-231 . 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  argue  at  length  the  falsity  of 
this  doctrine.  Our  main  object  in  bringing  it  into  notice 
is  to  show  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  system  to  which  we  im- 
pute it.  Besides,  if  we  have  succeeded  in  refuting  the 
premises  from  which  it  is  deduced,  it  falls  to  the  ground 
as  a  matter  of  course.  Nevertheless,  we  can  scarcely 
resist  the  temptation  to  discredit  it,  by  adverting  to  some 
of  the  contradictions  in  which  it  involves  its  advocates. 

Mr.  D.,  as  we  have  seen,  contends  that  holmess  does 
not  consist  in  a  "  disposition"  or  "  principle"  in  the  soul, 


110  NEW  DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 

operating  as  "  the  cause  of  holy  exercises,"  but  in  holy 
exercises  themselves,  which  are  caused  solely  by  influ- 
ences external  to  the  actor.  He  tells  us,  p.  516,  "That 
the  graces  of  the  Spirit  are  not  created  causes  per  se,  but 
habitual  voluntary  exercises  induced  by  his  efficacious  in- 
fluence through  the  truths  and  facts  of  revelation."  But 
in  the  very  same  paragraph  he  exalts  these  "  voluntary 
exercises"  into  "  aff"ections"  and  "  principles  of  action," 
and  ascribes  to  these  "  aflfections"  and  "  principles  of  ac- 
tion," the  causal  influence,  the  existence  of  vi^hich  he  has 
taken  so  much  pains  to  disprove.  "  These,"  says  he, 
"  are  all  manifestly  different  affections,  which  depend  ori- 
ginally on  our  natural  and  constitutional  susceptibilities, 
and  as  excited  and  elicited  by  the  Spirit's  exhibition  of 
the  objects  and  truths  appropriate  to  this  end,  assume  an 
impulsive  injiuence,  and  secure  those  acts  and  exercises  which 
we  call  holy.''''  And  at  the  conclusion  of  the  paragraph  he 
says,  "  Love,  repentance,  faith,  hope,  and  fear,  are,  in  their 
first  rise,  affections,  excited  and  elicited  by  appropriate 
objects,  and  becoming  habitual,  they  assume  such  a  per- 
manent influence  on  conduct  and  character,  as  to  be  de- 
nominated the  principles  of  Christian  action^ 

Here,  then,  we  are  instructed  that  these  "  holy  acts  and 
exercises,"  which  have  no  cause  in  the  soul  itself,  are 
"  affections"  and  "  principles  of  action,"  which  "  assume 
an  impulsive  influence,  and  secure  those  acts  and  exercises 
which  we  call  holy" — that  is,  if  the  language  used  has 
any  meaning,  the  holy  acts  and  exercises  which  have  no 
cause  in  the  soul  "  assume  an  impulsive  influence,"  be- 
come principles  of  action,  and  cause,  or  in  other  words, 
"  secure"  themselves. 

Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  question  is  not  how  holiness 
is  produced  by  its  great  Author,  whether  by  "  creation," 
or  "infusion,"  or  "implantation,"  or  by  "exciting  and 
eliciting"  it  by  the  exhibition  of  truth ;  but,  what  is  its  na- 


NEW  DIVINITY — HOLINESS.  Ill 

ture  when  produced.  Does  it  consist  solely  in  "voluntary 
exercises"  of  the  natural  faculties,  or  does  it  include 
principles  of  action  in  the  soul  of  the  holy  being,  to  which 
these  voluntary  exercises  may  be  referred,  as  a  real  and 
indispensable,  though  secondary  cause  1  Mr.  D.  has  ob- 
viously contradicted  himself  by  first  denying  the  existence 
of  a  cause  of  holy  actions  in  the  soul,  and  affirming  that 
holiness  consists  vi^holly  in  voluntary  exercises,  and  then 
attributing  holy  exercises  to  affections  and  principles  of 
Christian  action  "  which  assume  an  impulsive  influence,  and 
secure  those  acts  and  exercises  which  we  call  holj/,"  unless 
he  really  intended  to  affirm  the  absurdity  that  the  holy 
exercises  cause  themselves. 

But  it  becomes  us  not  to  rejoice  too  soon,  as  though  we 
had  taken  great  spoil.  It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  hold 
these  slippery  logicians  when  we  have  caught  them.  Al- 
though our  author  finds  it  convenient,  for  some  reason,  to 
refer  good  actions  to  affections  and  principles,  as  their 
cause,  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  he  intends  to  abide  by 
this  doctrine.  He  has  already  defined  affections  to  be 
nothing  more  than  voluntary  acts  and  exercises,  and  he 
proceeds  to  give  a  similar  explanation  of  the  term  "princi- 
ple." He  says,  in  the  succeeding  paragraph,  "The  intel- 
ligent reader  will  perceive  at  once  in  what  sense  we 
understand  the  word  principle, — not  as  designating  '  some- 
thing' laid  in  the  very  structure  of  the  being,  nor  a  super- 
added quality  of  the  soul,  nor  a  specific  cause  of  holy  exer- 
cises, lodged  in  the  heart  by  the  creative  power  of  God, 
anterior  to  such  exercises  ;  but  the  determining  or  regu- 
lating influence  of  any  particular  species  of  feeling,  as 
continuously  or  frequently  and  readily  excited  and  elicited 
by  the  presentation  of  some  object  or  truth,  appropriately 
operating  on  our  constitutional  susceptibilities." 

We  are  here  notified  that  he  does  not  mean  by  the  word 
principle  "  a  specific  cause  of  holy  exercises."     What, 


112  NEW  DIVINITY — HOLINESS. 

then,  does  he  mean  1  He  means  "  the  determining  or 
regulating  influences  of  any  particular  species  of  feeling." 
But  again  we  are  in  difficulties.  We  must  look  upon  this 
influence  of  feeling,  or  the  feeling  to  which  the  influence 
belongs,  which  he  identifies  with  principle,  either  as  a 
cause  of  voluntary  action,  and  therefore  distinct  from 
voluntary  action,  or  as  a  voluntary  action  merely.  If  it 
be  viewed  in  the  former  light,  he  has  fairly  entitled  him- 
self to  the  imputation  of  having  uttered  a  gross  contradic- 
tion. If  in  the  latter,  we  beg  him  to  accept  our  gratula- 
tions  for  the  sagacity  by  which  he  made  the  important 
discovery,  that  all  voluntary  exercises  are  caused  by  volun- 
tary exercises,  and  that  some  of  them,  at  least,  must  cause 
themselves. 

But  why  does  he  pursue  this  course  ?  Why  maintain 
that  holiness  consists  altogether  in  voluntary  exercises, 
and  then  attribute  these  holy  exercises  to  holy  afiections 
and  principles  as  their  cause,  and  then  again  define  affec- 
tions and  principles  to  be  nothing  more  than  voluntary 
exercises  ?  Because,  while  the  theory  of  divinity  which 
he  and  his  coadjutors  have  adopted,  requires  of  them  that 
they  maintain  the  first  position,  common  sense,  the  philo- 
sophy, the  language,  the  laws,  the  jurisprudence,  of  all 
civilized  communities,  attribute  virtuous  or  vicious  actions 
to  virtuous  or  vicious  innate  principles  as  their  source ; 
and  they  are  sometimes,  in  the  course  of  their  doctrinal 
discussions,  placed  in  such  positions  that  they  must  con- 
form to  this  imiversal  judgment,  or  appear  obviously  and 
undisguisedly  arrayed  against,  it.  To  avoid  this  incon- 
venience, they  adopt  the  langTiage  which  conveys  the 
popular  sentiment,  and  then  interpret,  so  as  to  harmonize 
it  with  their  theory.  This  is  the  course  they  pursue  in 
arguing  out  their  views  of  the  nature  of  depravity,  as  well 
as  of  the  nature  of  holiness.  They  are  often  compelled 
to  contradict  themselves  by  using  language  which  implies 


NEW  DIVINITY HOLINESS.  113 

the  very  opposite  of  that  which  they  are  endeavouring  to 
maintain.  Affections,  dispositions,  and  principles,  are 
spoken  of  as  the  sources  of  voluntary  action.  But  the 
reader  need  not  misapprehend  them,  for  they  are  careful 
to  redeem  themselves  by  resolving  all  affections,  dispo- 
sitions, and  principles  of  moral  action  into  voluntary  ex- 
ercises. < 

We  will  here  cite  an  example  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  word  "  disposition"  is  explained,  that  our  readers 
may  be  on  their  guard  when  it  is  used  in  their  discourses 
or  writings  on  this  subject: — "It  is  philosophy, ^^  says  Mr. 
D.,  "that  talks  of  some  peculiar  adaptation  of  created 
nature,  that  is  the  specific  cause  of  those  acts  and  exer- 
cises which,  as  they  are  strung  together  in  a  series,  or 
become  habitual,  we  denominate  disposition." — p.  458. 

Again  :  "  We  use  it  commonly  to  denote  any  particular 
class  of  acts  and  exercises  toward  given  objects  as  they 
operate  on  our  constitutional  capacities  and  susceptibilities, 
and  not  as  efficient  causes  per  se,  lodged  in  the  structure 
of  the  soul,  or  superadded  to  its  properties." — Ibid. 

Let  it  be  remembered,  then,  when  they  refer  actions  to 
"  dispositions,"  as  they  often  do,  that  they  mean  nothing 
more  by  "  dispositions"  than  "  acts  and  exercises  as  they 
are  strung  together  in  a  series,"  or  "  any  particular  class 
of  acts  and  exercises."  They  have  in  some  instances  re- 
solved the  "  heart"  itself  into  voluntary  action. 

Another  advantage  is  gained  by  this  mode  of  operation. 
When  their  orthodoxy  is  called  in  question,  they  can 
readily  adjust  themselves  to  the  measure  of  opposite 
standards.  They  can  agree  with  one  side  or  the  other, 
as  the  emergency  requires  ;  and  by  bringing  their  mental 
juggling  to  bear  on  a  well  selected  vocabulary  of  ambigu- 
ous terms,  they  can  imdertake  to  convince  an  Old  School 
Calvinist,  in  one  hour,  that  there  are  but  shades  of  differ- 
ence in  their  doctrinal  views,  and  then  turn  around,  and  in 


114  NEW  mVTNlTY HOLINESS. 

the  next  hour,  hope  to  convince  the  Methodist  that  they 
hold  his  doctrines  precisely. 

We  will  leave  it  to  our  readers  to  estimate  the  services 
rendered  to  literature  and  philosophy,  by  a  theological 
system  which  is  compelled,  for  its  own  support,  to  con- 
found voluntary  acts  of  the  mind  with  principles  of  action. 

There  is  one  objection  urged  against  the  Scriptural 
view  of  the  nature  of  holiness  an  wliich  we  propose  to 
bestow  a  moment's  attention.  It  is  urged  with  equal 
plausibility  against  the  Scriptural  doctrines  of  the  nature 
of  regeneration  and  depravity.  It  is,  that  a  constitutional 
change,  by  which  the  regenerate  man  is  supposed  to  have 
communicated  to  him  a  new  principle  of  action,  would 
destroy  his  identity. 

This  objection  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  whatever 
is  constitutional  must  be  an  essential  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion. If  this  be  the  case,  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
constitutional  diseases,  for  no  one  would  contend  that  dis- 
ease is  an  essential  part  of  the  constitution  of  the  human 
body.  Our  principal  object,  however,  in  noticing  the  ob- 
jection is,  to  compare  it  with  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  human  body.  The  change  which  is  to  take 
place  in  the  bodies  of  the  saints  will  be  constitutional,  if 
a  constitutional  change  be  possible.  They  are  to  be  in- 
vested with  new  principles  ;  to  be  adapted  to  the  occu- 
pancy of  new  elements,  and  to  new  modes  of  existence. 
But  if  their  identity  is  not  preserved,  there  is  no  resurrec- 
tion. The  objection  tends,  therefore,  to  the  destruction 
of  the  glorious  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  human 
body. 

The  doctrine  respecting  the  nature  of  holiness  which 
we  have  charged  on  the  theory  of  modern  Calvinism,  is 
thus  asserted  by  the  Christian  Spectator,  Vol.  iii.  No.  3, 
p.  473  :  "  Holiness  can  no  more  be  created  in  the  soul 
than  sin.   It  is,  and  must  be,  voluntary  action,  the  free  choice 


NEW  DIVINITY INFANTS.  115 

of  the  agent,  or  wants  that  which  is  essential  to  the  na- 
ture of  holiness."  This  is  the  doctrine  advanced  by  Dr. 
Taylor,  the  Socinian,  in  the  work  reviewed  by  Mr.  Wesley 
in  his  treatise  on  Original  Sin. 


CHAPTER  X. 

CHARACTER  OF  INFANTS. 

The  doctrine  that  all  depravity  and  holiness  consists  of 
voluntary  action,  leads  directly  to  the  doctrine,  that  iiifants 
have  no  moral  character — are  neither  holy  nor  depraved. 
The  passage  from  one  doctrine  to  the  other  is  short.  If 
depravity  and  holiness  consist  wholly  in  voluntary  and 
accountable  action,  and  infants  are  incapable  of  such  ac- 
tion, they  can  neither  have  the  one  nor  the  other. 

One  or  two  examples  will  be  sufficient  to  show  that  this 
doctrine  also  is  held  and  taught. 

Mr.  Finney,  in  his  sermon  on  Why  sinners  hate  God, 
says,  "  Perhaps  some  one  will  object  and  say.  If  sinners 
are  not  born  with  a  sinful  nature,  how  then  are  they  saved 
by  grace  ?  But  I  ask  in  return.  If  they  are  born  with  a  sin- 
ful nature,  how  are  they  saved  by  grace  ?  Does  God  cre- 
ate an  infant  a  sinner,  and  then  call  it  grace  to  save  him 
from  the  sinfulness  of  a  nature  of  his  OAvn  creation  ?  Ab- 
surd and  blasphemous." — ^p.  156. 

Again  :  "  But  let  us  look  at  this.  Here  are  two  sys- 
tems ;  the  one  maintains  that  infants  have  no  moral  cha- 
racter at  all  until  they  have  committed  actual  transgres- 
sion— that  their  first  moral  actions  are  universally  sinful, 
but  that  previous  to  moral  action  they,  are  neither  sinful 
nor  holy — that,  as  they  have  no  moral  character,  they  de- 
serve neither  praise  nor  blame  ;  neither  life  nor  death  at 
the  hand  of  God ;  God  might  annihilate  them  without  in- 


116  NEW  DIVINITY INFANTS. 

justice,  or  he  may  bestow  upon  them  eternal  life  as  a  free 
and  unearned  gift.  The  other  system  maintains  that  in- 
fants have  a  sinful  nature,  which  they  have  inherited  from 
Adam." — Ibid. 

He  proceeds  to  argue  against  the  latter  system,  and  in 
the  course  of  the  argument  places  his  own  system  in  con- 
trast Avith  it.  "  But  let  us  look,"  he  says,  "  at  the  other 
system  for  a  moment.  This  denies  that  infants  have 
a  sinful  nature,  and  rejects  the  monstrous  dogma,  that  God 
has  created  the  nature  sinful,  and  then  pretends  to  save 
the  infant  from  a  nature  of  his  own  creation  by  grace,  as 
if  the  infant  deserved  damnation  for  being  what  God  made 
it."— p.  157. 

Mr.  Duffield  developes  his  views  on  the  subject  in  the 
following  manner  :  "  Our  object  is  simply  an  observation 
of  facts,  as  far  as  they  tend  to  shape  or  affect  the  future 
moral  character  of  the  child.  We  ssij  future,  for  it  is  a 
question  alike  pertinent  and  important,  whether  in  the  in- 
cipient period  of  infancy  and  childhood  there  can  be  any 
moral  character  whatever  possessed." 

We  are  not  left  in  the  dark  as  to  the  side  which  he 
takes  on  this  "  question  alike  pertinent  and  important." 
He  proceeds  to  explain  what  constitutes  moral  character. 
"  Moral  character,"  he  says,  "  is  acquired  by  acts  of  a 
moral  nature.  Moral  acts  are  those  acts  which  are  con- 
templated by  the  law,  prescribing  the  rule  of  conduct.  It 
is  not  every  act  we  perform  that  is  a  moral  act."  And 
the  conclusion  to  which  he  comes  is  thus  stated  :  "  Such 
being  the  case,  that  many  actions  possess  altogether  an 
indifferent  character,  and  some  do  not  even  fall  under  the 
cognizance  of  the  law  of  God — and  that  too  in  adults, 
where  the  capacities  for  moral  action  are  fully  developed 
— it  is  obvious  that  in  infancy  and  incipient  childhood, 
where  none  of  the  actions  are  deliberate,  or  the  result  of 
motive,  operating  in  connection  Avith  the  knowledge  of 


NEW  DIVINITY INFANTS.  117 

law,  and  of  the  great  end  of  all  human  actions,  no  moral 
character  can  appropriately  he  predicated." — pp.  377,  378. 

We  shall  not  take  up  time  in  urging  the  objection  with 
which  Mr.  Finney  affects  to  grapple — that  infants,  if  this 
theory  be  true,  will  not  be  saved  hy  grace ;  but  we  do  in- 
vite a  moment's  attention  to  the  unfairness  with  which  he 
treats  it.     He  undertakes  to  retort  the  objection.     But,  . 
that  his  confident  retort  may  appear  plausible,  he  grossly  ! 
misrepresents  the  theory  of  his  opponents.     He  directs  / 
his  argument  against  the  supposition  that  God  creates  the  j 
infant  a  sinner.     But  who  maintains  this  opinion  ?    That  i 
this  misrepresentation  was  intentional,  appears  probable; 
from  the  fact,  that  immediately  before  and  after  his  retort, 
he  states  the  orthodox  tenet  as  it  is,  that  infants  "  are  born 
with  a  sinful  nature  ;  that  they  have  a  sinful  nature  which 
they  have  inherited  from  Adam."    Let  him  show,  if  he  can, 
that  there  is  no  grace  in  saving  infants  from  a  depravity  ^ 
which  is  not  supposed  to  be  created,  but  naturally  inherited. 
He  also  overlooks  the  principal  meaning  which  the  term 
grace  is  intended  to  convey — that  of  supernatural  influence 
— and  thus  evades  the  force  of  the  objection. 

There  is  another  objection,  however,  with  which  he 
was  doubtless  acquainted,  but  which  he  declines  intro- 
ducing to  the  notice  of  his  readers,  at  least  in  this  sermon. 
It  is  this  :  If  infants  have  no  moral  character,  they  are, 
dying  in  infancy,  ineligible  to  admission  either  into  heaven 
or  hell.  Nothing  can  enter  heaven  but  what  is  perfectly 
holy ;  and  if  they  are  sent  to  hell  they  must  be  damned 
without  either  depravity  or  personal  transgression,  since 
both  holiness  and  depravity  are  said  to  consist  in  voluntary 
exercises,  of  which  they  are  incapable.  Mr.  F.  no  doubt 
had  his  eye  on  this  difficulty  when  he  said,  "  God  might 
annihilate  them  without  injustice,  or  he  may  bestow  upon 
them  eternal  life  as  a  free  and  unearned  gift."  But  the 
difficulty  is  not  their  destitution  of  merit — their  not  having 


118  NEW  DIVINITY INFANTS. 

earned  eternal  life  ;  but  tlieir  destitution  of  holiness.  If  he 
admits  them  into  heaven,  they  must  enter  "  without  holi- 
ness." But  if  God  cannot  create  holiness  in  the  soul,  as 
they  have  assured  us,  and  as  none  can  enter  heaven  with- 
out it,  their  exclusion  is  inevitable. 

It  need  not  excite  wonder  if  they  should  conclude  that 
the  best  way  of  disposing  of  this  objection,  is  that  of  main- 
taining silence  respecting  it.  But  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  such  daring  speculators  would  suffer  themselves  to  be 
pent  in  by  it,  without  contriving  some  way  of  escape. 
Some  have  found  relief  by  conceding  that  infants  have  a 
moral  character,  while,  to  avoid  the  necessity  of  admitting 
that  holiness  and  depravity  include  more  than  voluntary 
action,  they  have  adopted  the  theory  that  voluntary  and 
accountable  action  commences  at  the  time  of  birth — that 
"  mankind  are  literally  at  hirth  voluntary  and  accountable 
agents,  and  actual  sinners  against  God — that  the  new-born 
infant  is  a  responsible  subject  of  God's  moral  government." 

We  shall  not  attempt  to  refute  this  incredible  proposi- 
tion by  entering  upon  the  philosophical  inquiries  to  which 
it  might  lead,  but  by  bringing  into  view  one  or  two  of  its 
theological  aspects  merely.  Suppose  this  doctrine,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  to  be  true,  we  are  placed  in  this 
dilemma  :  either  all  infants,  from  the  period  of  their  birth 
to  the  termination  of  infancy,  voluntarily  and  constantly 
exert  their  powers  of  moral  agency  in  obedience  to  the  law 
of  God,  and  thus  secure  their  final  salvation  in  case  they 
die  in  infancy ;  or,  falling  into  sin,  and  under  the  con- 
demnation of  the  divine  law,  they  are  liable,  even  in  ear- 
liest infancy,  to  the  damnation  of  hell.  Moreover,  if  this 
doctrine  be  true,  we  cannot  see  why  infants  may  not  com- 
mence their  existence  with  "  holy  exercises,"  and  perse- 
vere, and  so  present  millions  of  exceptions  to  that  doctrine 
of  our  Saviour,  which  affirms  the  universal  necessity  of 
the  new  birth. 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  119 

We  close  this  chapter  by  remarking  that  the  reader 
will  be  able  to  see,  in  the  light  of  these  investigations,  what 
is  meant  by  many  of  the  preachers  and  writers  of  New 
Divinity,  when  they  so  emphatically  affirm  that  all  are  born 
"  destitute  of  holiness."  It  is  meant,  that  they  are  born 
without  a  moral  character  of  any  kind.  They  are,  accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  born  as  destitute  of  depravity  as  they 
are  of  holiness. 


CHAPTER  XL 

REGENERATION. 

Another  consequence  resulting  from  the  doctrines 
which  have  been  reviewed  is,  that  a  voluntary  change  of 
will  or  purpose,  merely,  or  a  choice,  or  resolution,  or  determi- 
nation to  be  a  Christian,  or  a  change  in  the  character  of  the 
voluntary  exercises,  is  su^fficient  to  constitute  regeneration. 
This  is  plain.  If  depravity  does  not  consist  in  a  principle, 
or  disposition,  or  propensity,  or  taste,  or  corruption  of  our 
nature,  or  any  thing'which  "lies  back  of  the  will,"  or  is 
anterior  to  our  voluntary  exercises,  or  is  the  cause  of  them, 
— ^if  it  is  in  no  sense  constitutional — if  it  consists  wholly 
in  being  imwilling  to  obey  God,  or  in  wrong  voluntary  ex- 
ercises, which  we  have  shown  to  be  the  case  if  the  doc- 
trine of  natural  ability  be  true,  an  unregenerate  man  has 
only  to  choose,  or  purpose,  or  resolve,  or  make  up  hia 
mind,  or  become  willing  to  serve  God  and  be  a  Christian 
— to  commence  a  new  course  of  voluntary  exercises,  which 
he  has  a  natural  ability  to  do  at  any  time,  and  all  his  de- 
pravity is  gone.  He  is  regenerated.  He  is  a  Christian. 
No  other  change  is  necessary. 

This  consequence,  also,  is  adopted,  and  figures  promi- 
nently in  the  doctrinal  exhibitions  of  New  Divinity.     Dr. 


120  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

Lansing  says,  at  the  close  of  his  sermon,  "  On  the  Inability 
of  Sinners  Voluntary,"  p.  1 54,  "  Our  subject  corrects  an 
error  into  which  some  have  fallen,  on  the  great  doctrine 
of  regeneration.  Sinners  are  called  on  to  see  and  hear 
with  the  eyes  and  ears  they  have.  They  are  not  com- 
manded to  make  them  eyes  and  ears  that  they  may  see 
and  hear.  Thence  we  learn  what  we  are  to  understand 
by  the  requisition  of  God  through  the  prophet,  '  Make  you 
a  new  heart.'  Ndt  a  new  principle  of  action,  a  new  taste. 
Not  alter  the  physical  constitution.  God  has  made  this 
just  as  he  would  have  it.  Man  is  now  all  that  it  is  ne- 
cessary he  should  be  to  render  it  proper  or  consistent  to 
affirm  praise  or  blame  of  him.  Sinners  can  do  right  if 
they  please,  without  a  physical  change.  A  moral  change 
is  necessary ;  but  a  moral  change  is  nothing  more  than  a 
change  of  will,  or  purpose,  or  inclination;  and  it  is  this 
change  that  God,  by  the  mouth  of  his  prophet,  commands 
the  sinner  to  operate  for  himself,  when  he  says,  '  Make 
you  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit.'  '  Cleanse  your  hearts, 
ye  sinners,  and  purify  your  hearts,  ye  double-minded.' " 
Here  he  not  only  inculcates  the  doctrine  that  "  a  change 
of  will,  purpose,  or  inclination,"  constitutes  regeneration, 
but  plainly  denies  that  it  includes  any  thing  more.  He 
denies,  specifically,  that  it  consists  in  a  change  affecting 
the  constitution,  or  the  principles  or  sources  of  voluntary 
action. 

Mr.  Duffield,  in  his  work  on  Regeneration,  maintains 
that  it  consists  solely  in  a  change  of  will  or  voluntary  ex- 
ercises, and  denies  that  it  originates  in  the  soul  a  new 
principle,  to  which  holy  exercises  may  be  referred  as  their 
source.  He  refers  to  Dr.  Witherspoon  as  expressing  cor- 
rect views  on  the  subject,  in  opposition  to  those  of  Dr. 
Owen  and  others  : — "  Dr.  Witherspoon,  on  the  one  hand, 
in  his  valuable  practical  treatise  on  regeneration,  at  the 
very  commencement,  pronounces  the  Scriptural  phrases, 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  121 

'  being  born  again,'  '  the  new  creature,'  'his  workmanship,' 
&c.,  to  be  metaphorical,  thus  evidently  denying  there  is  a 
literal  or  real  creation. 

"  He  does  indeed  speak  of  an  '  inward  and  essential 
change,'  but  it  is  very  evident  that  he  does  not,  by  these 
terms,  denote  any  other  change  than  may  be  traced  in  the 
voluntary  exercises ;  for  he  considers  that  it  may  be  as  ap- 
propriately designated  by  repentance  as  by  regeneration." 
—p.  213. 

Again  :  "  He  does  not  pretend  to  '  prove,  or  assert  the 
existence  of  a  principle  of  life,  or  any  thing  else,  back  of 
the  voluntary  exercises  themselves,  as  the  cause  or  origin 
of  that  holiness  without  which  no  man  can  see  the  Lord.'  " 
—Ibid. 

Again :  "  It  is  going  altogether  beyond  the  analogy  in 
the  case,  to  assert  that  there  is  in  regeneration  the  injec- 
tion, infusion,  or  implantation,  or  creation  of  a  neio  princi- 
ple of  spiritual  life." — p.  204. 

Again  :  "  It  is  philosophy,  based  on  a  false  physiology, 
which  comes  in  and  says  the  Spirit  secures  the  exercise 
of  these  graces  by  infusing  grace,  or  by  putting  into  the 
soul  a  2')i'inciple  of  life,  or  by  creating  a  disposition  for  holi- 
ness, which  principle  or  disposition  is  the  immediate  cause 
of  those  holy  exercises  of  mind  and  heart,  technically 
called  the  graces  of  the  Spirit." — p.  230. 

Again :  "  But  we  may  know  and  trace  the  immediate 
effects  of  his,  the  '  Spirit's'  agency,  inasmuch  as  they  all 
lie  in  our  voluntary  acts  and  exercises." — p.  439. 

Again :  "  That  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  author  of  rege- 
neration, is  not  denied  by  those  who  speak  of  it  as  the 
commencement  of  a  change  in  the  character  of  our  volun- 
tary exercises.  Whether  that  change  is  the  result  of  a 
creative  act  of  God's  physical  power, — terminating  on  our 
constitutional  capacities  and  susceptibilities ;  or  consists 
in  the  substitution  or  succession  of  new  exercises  of  these 

6 


122  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

capacities  and  susceptibilities,  the  exercises  taking  their 
character  from  the  objects  and  motives  inducing  them,  are 
questions  which  have  been  already  answered." — p.  480. 

Again  :  "  Some  vague  and  mystic  notions  are  had  about 
disposition  and  habit,  as  the  proper  philosophical  cause  of 
holy  acts  and  exercises.  Tliis  philosophical  cause  of  holy 
acts  and  exercises  is  itself  pronounced  holy ;  as  every 
cause,  it  is  thought,  must  possess  the  same  quality  or  cha- 
racter with  its  effects ;  and  in  the  production,  or  commu- 
nication, or  lodgment,  or  creation  of  this  causal  '  some- 
thing,' this  disposition  or  habit  in  the  human  soul,  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  it  is  alleged  consists  regeneration.  Power 
is  thus  given  to  the  regenerate  man  to  perform  holy  acts, 
and  thus  the  efficacious  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  re- 
solved into  a  mere  physical  efficiency !  And  all  the  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  which  speak  of  his  power  in  this  con- 
nection, are  explained  by  means  of  this  philosophical 
invention  P'' — p.  511. 

The  author  of  "  Views  in  Theology"  says,  "  But  it  will 
perhaps  be  asked,  '  Admitting  that  the  Divine  Spirit  em- 
ploys motives  as  an  instrument  in  renovating  the  mind ; 
still,  after  all,  does  he  not  do  something  more  than  merely 
bring  a  moral  influence  to  bear  on  it  ?'  What  more  ?  What 
more  is  necessary  to  be  done  ?  What  more  can  be  done  ? 
No  physical  change,  as  has  been  shown,  is  requisite ;  no- 
thing needs  to  be  accomplished,  but  simply  to  excite  the 
mind  to  .exert  itself  in  a  particular  course  of  action."  Again : 
"  Those  who  are  renovated  neither  exhibit  any  indication 
to  others,  nor  have  any  consciousness  themselves  of  hav- 
ing experienced  any  change,  except  in  their  manner  of 
acting  in  relation  to  their  obligations." — part  iii,  p.  84. 

The  Rev.  Theodore  Spencer,  known  as  an  ardent  pro- 
moter of  New  Divinity,  in  his  tract  entitled,  "  The  De- 
ceived Professor  Undeceived,  and  led  quite  to  Christ,'' 
which  professes  to  be  a  dialogue  between  a  deceived  pro- 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  123 

fessor  and  a  minister,  represents  the  parties  as  conversing 
in  the  following  language  : — 

"  Minister.  Did  you  not,  previous  to  submission,  spend 
much  time  in  efforts  to  obtain  right  feelings,  in  endea- 
vouring to  submit  feelingly,  or  in  prayer  to  God  for  a  new- 
heart  ? 

'*  Professor.  I  did,  but  without  success.  Indeed,  at  last, 
I  despaired  of  ever  doing  duty. 

"  Min.  While  despairing  of  success,  and  before  indulging 
a  hope,  do  you  remember  forming  a7iy  determination  as  to 
your  future  course  of  Ufe  ;  or  making  up  your  mind  as  to 
what  God  might  do  with  you  in  time  and  eternity  ?  I  do 
not  refer  to  any  act  you  would  denominate  as  done  feel- 
ingly, but  a  mere  resolution  neither  preceded  nor  followed 
by  perceptible  feelings. 

"  Pro.  I  do  remember  such  an  act,  although  I  have  not 
regarded  it  as  of  any  importance.  While  alone  in  my 
room,  reflecting  on  my  dangerous  state,  I  made  up  my  mind 
to  do  my  duty  and  serve  God  for  the  future.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  any  materially  different  resolution. 

"Mz«..That  seemingly  trivial  determination  was  the  gate 
by  which  you  entered  into  the  path  you  have  since  been 
walking,  either  to  life  or  death ;  it  was  your  submission, 
either  genuine  or  spurious." — p.  9. 

Whether  the  submission  which  this  "  mere  resolution," 
— this  "  seemingly  trivial  determination"  constituted,  was 
genuine  or  spurious,  depends,  according  to  Mr.  iSpencer's 
notions,  on  whether  it  was  entirely  disinterested  or  not — 
whether  it  was  formed  in  view  of  obtaining  salvation,  or 
without  any  reference  to  that  object,  and  with  a  willing- 
ness to  be  saved  or  damned  as  God  should  determine. 

This  professor  is  pronovmced  deluded,  because  he  de- 
termined to  obey  in  order  to  secure  his  salvation,  and  not 
"  merely  because  God  and  duty  required  it,  willing  that 
right  might  take  place  whether"  he  were  *'  saved  or  pun- 


134  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

ished."  The  resolution  would  have  been  genuine  sub- 
mission if  it  had  been  formed  with  an  entire  indifference 
to  his  salvation.  But  those  who  do  not  hold  this  doctrine 
of  disinterestedness,  do  not  make  it  a  part  of  the  criterion 
of  true  submission.  Nor  is  this  to  be  regretted,  as  it  serves 
only  to  render  the  heresy  more  pernicious  and  revolting. 

The  Christian  Spectator,  in  a  review  of  a  work  written 
by  Rev.  Dr.  Skinner,  and  President  Beecher,  of  Illinois 
College,  entitled,  "Hints  designed  to  aid  Christians 

IN  THEIR  efforts  TO  CONVERT  MEN  TO  GoD,"  attributes  tO 

those  authors  the  doctrine  under  consideration. 

The  reviewer  remarks :  "  In  examining  these  directions, 
we  shall  find  that  they  are  founded  on  such  principles  as 
the  following : — 

"  First,  that  the  change  in  regeneration  consists  wholly 
,in  the  sinner's  own  acts,  and  not  in  a  change  of  any  thing 
in  the  constitution  of  the  mind  lying  back  of  those  ac- 
tions."—p.  233,  vol.  iv.  No.  2. 

The  other  principles  relate  to  other  topics.  It  is  there- 
fore unnecessary  to  quote  them  at  present.  This  doctrine 
is  elaborately  and  perseveringly  advocated  by  the  con- 
ductors of  the  Christian  Spectator.  The  reviewer  gives 
it  his  cordial  sanction.  He  says,  with  reference  to  seve- 
ral passages  of  Scripture  which  he  quotes  as  countenan- 
cing it,  "  Now  who  that  has  not  been  misled  by  a  philoso- 
phical theory,  would  imagine  that  by  these  directions  it 
•was  meant  or  implied,  that  God  must  first  change  some 
constitutional  principle  or  disposition  in  the  mind,  back  of 
the  man's  actions,  and  thus  prepare  the  persons  addressed 
to  perform  the  things  required  ?" 

Other  examples  might  be  adduced  if  necessar}',  but 
these  are  quite  sufficient  to  show  that  we  have  neither 
hastily  attributed  this  doctrine  to  the  New  School  divines, 
nor  reasoned  incorrectly  in  deducing  it  from  their  views 
of  natural  ability  and  depravity. 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  125 

This  doctrine  is  already  refuted,  inasmuch  as  the  prin- 
ciples in  which  it  has  its  origin  have  been  proved  to  be 
both  unscriptural  and  absurd.  If  depravity  consists  in 
something  more  than  a  want  of  "  wiU"  to  serve  God,  or 
than  wrong  "  voluntary  exercises,"  that  change  by  which 
it  is  removed  must  consist  in  something  more  than  a 
change  of  purpose. 

The  conclusion  which  we  have  thus  drawn,  will  be 
found  to  accord  with  all  the  representations  of  Scrip- 
ture. They  speak  of  the  heart  as  the  subject  of  the 
change  under  consideration.  "  I  will  give  them  one 
heart,  and  I  will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you,  and  I  will 
take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh,  and  I  will  give  them 
a  heart  of  flesh.  That  they  may  walk  in  my  statutes, 
and  keep  mine  ordinances  to  do  them ;  and  they  shall  be 
my  people,  and  I  will  be  their  God,"  Ezek.  xi,  19,  20. 
*'  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the 
heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live,"  Deut. 
XXX,  6.  "  The  Lord  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia,  that  she 
attended  to  the  things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul,"  Acts 
xvi,  14.  And  without  entering  into  the  speculations  of 
philosophy  further  than  the  Scriptures  lead  us,  we  may 
aflirm,  that  the  heart — the  subject  of  this  change,  is  not  a 
mere  purpose,  a  volimtary  action,  but  a  source  of  voluntary 
action.  "  But  those  things  which  proceed  out  of  the 
mouth  come  forth  from  the  heart ;  and  they  defile  the  man. 
For  out  of  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  murders,  adul- 
teries, fornications,  thefts,  false  witness,  blasphemies," 
Matt.  XV,  18,  19.  "With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto 
salvation,"  Rom.  x,  10.  If,  then,  the  change  takes  place 
on  the  heart,  which  is  here  represented  as  the  constitu- 

j  tional  source  of  holy  or  sinful  exercises,  it  must  be.some- 

I  thing  more  than  a  change  of  volition. 


126  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

"  What  are  the  marks  of  regeneration  as  furnished  by 
the  Scriptures  ?  They  are,  freedom  from  condemnation, 
deHverance  from  the  thraldom  of  the  flesh,  and  walking  in 
the  spirit,  or  obedience  to  the  commands  of  God.  But 
nothing  is  more  clearly  taught  by  the  word  of  God,  than 
that  there  may  be  a  change  of  "  will"  and  the  voluntary 
exercises,  and  yet  all  these  marks  be  .absent.  "  For  we 
know  that  the  law  is  spiritual :  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  un- 
der sin.  For  that  which  I  do  I  allow  not :  for  what  I 
would,  that  do  I  not,"  &;c.  "  I  find  then  a  law  that  when 
I  would  do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me.  For  I  delight 
in  the  law  of  God  after  the  inward  man :  but  I  see  an- 
other law  in  my  members  warring  against  the  law  of  my 
mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin 
which  is  in  my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am, 
who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?"  Here 
is  the  "  will"  manifesting  itself  in  efforts  to  break  the  do- 
minion of  the  flesh  and  keep  the  law,  but  these  efforts  fail. 
They  wage  an  unsuccessful  conflict  with  the  law  of  sin  in 
the  members — "  the  principle  of  sin  personified,"  as  Mr. 
Duffield  denominates  it.  The  lusts  of  the  flesh  triumph. 
The  condemnation  and  wretchedness  remain.  And  this 
state  of  things  is  described  by  the  apostle,  as  anterior  to  a 
change  in  which  all  these  difficulties  are  removed,  and  all 
the  characteristics  of  a  regenerate  state  exhibited.  "  There 
is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  which  are  in 
Christ  Jesus,  Avho  walk  not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the 
Spirit.  For  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  which  is  in  Christ 
Jesus,  hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death. 
For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through 
the  flesh,  God,  sending  his  own  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sin- 
ful flesh,  and  for  sin  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh :  that  the 
righteousness  of  the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk 
not  after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit.  For  as  many  as 
are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  , 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  127 

In  precise  accordance  with  these  examples  and  reason- 
ings, is  the  direction  which  Joshua  gave  to  the  Israel- 
ites. Some  of  them,  and  probably  a  considerable  num- 
ber, were  guilty  of  idolatry.  He  urged  them  to  put  away 
the  gods  which  their  fathers  served,  and  serve  the  Lord. 
He  insisted  on  an  immediate  choice, — "  Choose  you  this 
day  whom  ye  will  serve,"  chap,  xxiv,  23.  They  decided 
that  they  would  serve  the  Lord.  He  then  gave  them 
to  understand  that  the  obligations  they  were  assuming 
required  great  courage  and  determination,  and  that  they 
could  not  serve  God  and  idols  at  the  same  time.  The 
people  solemnly  and  voluntarily  repeated  their  resolution 
to  serve  God.  Joshua  did  not  call  in  question  their  sin- 
cerity, but  evidently  assuming  that  this  was  their  honest, 
deliberate  purpose,  addressed  them  in  the  following  lan- 
guage :  "  Ye  are  witnesses  against  yourselves  that  ye 
have  chosen  the  Lord  to  serve  him,  and  they  said.  We  are 
witnesses;"  Now  if  a  will,  or  purpose,  or  choice,  or  de- 
termination to  serve  God,  constitutes  or  implies  regenera- 
tion, these  Israelites  were  regenerated  as  soon  as  they 
had  made  the  choice.  So  Mr.  Spencer  understands  the 
subject.  He  tells  us  that  conversion  "  is  that  act  which 
that  devoted  servant  of  God,  Joshua,  required  of  the  Israel- 
ites after  presenting  the  Lord  before  them.  "  Choose  this 
day  whom  ye  will  serve,"  and  it  is  that  act  which  the 
people  cordially  performed,  "  we  will  serve  the  Lord." 
But  Joshua  understood  the  matter  differently.  He  imme- 
diately adds,  "  Now,  therefore,  put  away  the  strange  gods 
which  are  among  you,  and  incline  your  hearts  unto  the 
Lord  God  of  Israel."  A  direction  Avhich  plainly  proves 
that,  notwithstanding  their  resolution  to  obey  God,  there 
yet  remained  the  task  of  putting  away  the  strange  gods, 
and  inclining  their  hearts  unto  the  Lord  God  of  Israel : 
unless  we  suppose  that  a  man  may  be  regenerate  before 
he  puts  away  his  idolatry  and  gives  Ids  affections  to  God. 


128  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

The  resolution  had  to  be  carried  into  effect.  It  is  not  un- 
common for  men,  under  the  excitement  of  motives,  to  re- 
solve on  actions  which  they  never  perform.  When  they 
proceed  to  the  execution  of  their  purpose,  they  come  in 
contact  with  a  disinclination  which  prostrates,  and  triumphs 
over,  their  most  magnanimous  resolves.  This  act  of  choice, 
instead  of  constituting  regeneration,  was  but  the  com- 
mencement of  the  process  which  leads  on  to  regene- 
ration. 

The  doctrine  which  we  oppose  is  refuted  by  all  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  represent  salvation  as  condi- 
tional ;  inasmuch  as  the  performance  of  the  condition, 
■which  in  the  nature  of  things  must  precede  regeneration, 
presupposes  the  change  of  purpose — the  choice,  &c.,  in 
■which  it  is  alleged  regeneration  consists. 

The  vain  subterfuges  to  which  the  advocates  of  this 
doctrine  are  driven,  in  their  efforts  to  sustain  it,  are  of 
themselves  sufficient  to  render  it  very  suspicious.  The 
Scriptures,  as  we  have  seen,  represent  the  heart  to  be  the 
subject  of  regeneration.  Mr.  Spencer,  true  to  his  theor}% 
resolves  the  heart  into  mere  action.  In  his  tract,  "  The 
Sinner  led  quite  to  Christ,"  page  15,  he  says,  "The 
term  heart,  when  used  as  constituting  the  moral  charac- 
ter of  the  soxil,  must  mean  the  desires,  affections,  or  acts 
of  the  soul,  as  the  soul  is  to  be  praised  or  blamed  only 
for  its  acts." 

Mr.  Finney  runs  into  the  same  egregious  error.  He  de- 
fines the  heart  to  be  "  that  deep-rooted  but  voluntary  prefer- 
ence of  the  mind,  which  lies  back  of  all  its  other  voluntary 
affections  and  emotions,  and  from  which  they  take  their 
character."  Regeneration  he  defines  to  be  a  voluntary 
change  of  this  preference.  But  he  is  admirably  incon- 
sistent. Can  he  not  perceive  the  difficulty  in  which  he 
involves  himself?  A  man  is  voluntarily  to  change  the 
preference  which  "  lies  back  of  all  his  other  volitions." 


NEW  DiVINItr— REGENERATION.  129 

A  volition  is  to  arise  out  of  that  preference,  so  hostile 
as  to  destroy  it,  and  substitute  for  it  one  of  a  decidedly 
opposite  character.  Out  of  the  voluntary  preference 
for  sin,  is  to  arise  a  voluntary  preference  for  holiness. 
The  volition  which  the  preference  originates,  is  to  turn 
around  and  change  the  preference  by  which  it  is  originated. 
The  effect  is  to  destroy  its  own  cause.  The  difficulty  is 
not  relieved  by  a  recurrence  to  the  consideration,  that  this 
deep-seated  preference  is  in  the  first  instance  voluntary — 
a  pretence  which  will,  by  no  means,  endure  the  investi- 
gations of  a  sound  philosophy:  for  when  it  has  been 
once  formed,  all  other  volitions  arise  out  of  it,  and  must 
therefore  be  in  accordance  with  it ;  and  the  voluntary 
attempt  of  the  individual,  to  whom  it  belongs,  to  change 
it,  must  encounter  the  impossibilities  which  we  have 
specified. 

Mr.  Duffield,  for  the  same  purpose,  resorts  to  the 
science  of  physiology,  and  devotes  two  chapters  to  an 
investigation  of  the  nature  of  life.  He  contends  that  it  is 
not  a  principle,  as  is  generally  supposed — a  cause  of  vital 
action,  but  consists  in  action  itself.  He  defines  it  to  con- 
sist in  "  the  regular  series  of  relative  appropriate  charac- 
teristic actions  of  an  individual  being." — p.  115.  He 
attaches  great  importance  to  this  speculation,  as  will 
appear  from  what  he  says  on  page  205  :  "  The  writings 
of  many  theologians  contain  expressions  which  betray, 
at  one  time,  utter  ignorance,  and  at  another,  erroneous 
views  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  life.  It  seems  to  be 
taken  for  granted  by  not  a  few,  that,  physiologically,  life 
is  a  created  essence,  and  itself  a  cause  of  those  actions  and 
processes  in  our  animal  frame,  which  we  call  vital ;  and 
speaking  analogically,  therefore,  as  our  terms  are  borrowed 
from  material  things,  the  impression  is  almost  indelibly 
made  that  they  consider  regeneration  literally  to  be  the 
infusion,  implantation,  or  creation  of  some  inherent  princi- 

6* 


130  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

pie,  essence,  or  substance,  whicli  is  specifically  the  cause 
of  those  actions  we  account  spiritual  or  holy." 

The  application  of  his  theory  of  life  to  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration  is  this  :  If  natural  life  consists  in  action,  we 
are  authorized,  by  analogy,  to  conclude  that  spiritual  life 
consists  in  action.  And  as  regeneration  is  the  commence- 
ment of  spiritual  life,  it  cannot  consist  in  the  origination 
of  a  new  principle  of  spiritual  action,  but  must  consist 
wholly  in  the  commencement  of  the  action  itself.  "  Re- 
generation," says  he,  "  is  the  commencement  of  the  life 
which  has  been  lost,  the  rational  soul  of  man  beginning  to 
act  appropriately  in  the  exercise  of  its  moral  powers  or 
capacities." — p.  196. 

Whether  life  consists  in  action  solely,  or  is  a  principle, 

we  are  not  anxious  at  present  to  determine.     This  we 

-know,   that   the   views   of  many  very  able   and  popular 

physiologists  are  decidedly  at  variance  with  those  of  Mr. 

Duffield. 

But,  even  admitting  that  life  does  consist  altogether  in 
action,  our  very  physiological  theologian  is  exceedingly 
unfortunate  in  his  definition  of  it.  "  It  consists,"  he  says, 
"  in  the  regular  series  of  relative  appropriate  characteristic 
actions  of  an  individual  being."  But  what  does  he  mean 
by  the  "  regular  series  V  Does  he  mean  the  aggregate  of 
a  man's  actions  ?  We  cannot  tell  what  other  idea  to  attach 
to  his  phraseology.  If  he  means  some  particular  actions, 
it  would  be  obligatory  on  him,  in  attempting  a  definition, 
to  specify  those  actions  in  which  life  consists,  in  contra- 
distinction to  those  in  M'hich  it  does  not  consist.  It  is 
unnecessary,  however,  to  search  furtlier,  inasmuch  as  he 
uses  another  expression  which  determines  his  meaning  to 
be  as  we  have  supposed.  He  speaks  of  it  as  "  the  totality 
of  that  series  of  actions  or  motions  observable  in  an  or- 
ganized body."  Mark  the  effect  of  this  definition  !  If  life 
consists  in  action,  and  it  takes  the  "  regular  series,"  "  the 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  131 

totality"  of  the  actions  of  a  being  to  constitute  it,  it  will 
follow,  inevitably,  that  no  man  is  in  possession  of  life  un- 
til the  last  in  the  *'  series"  of  actions  is  performed,  and  by 
that  time  he  will  be  dead !  Such  is  the  fatally  ludicrous 
consequence  to  which  this  definition  fairly  conducts  us. 

Again,  his  own  application  of  the  definition  completely 
explodes  it.  The  design  is  to  secure  the  doctrine  that 
spiritual  life  consists  solely  in  action,  and  that,  of  course, 
regeneration  is  simply  a  change  of  voluntary  action.  He 
gives  us  to  understand  that  the  first  spiritual  act  indicates 
the  existence  of  spiritual  life.  "Regeneration  is  the  com- 
mencement of  spiritual  life.  That  life  must  have  its 
commencement  in  some  act  or  exercise,  which  is  the  Jirst 
in  the  new  series.  Faith,  which  is  simply  a  belief  in  the 
truth  as  made  known  by  a  credible  witness,  is  that  act  or 
exercise  of  which,  where  God  is  the  witness,  life,  in  the 
sacred  S.criptures,  is  predicated."  "  It  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned on  the  one  hand,  that  till  a  man  believes  he  is  des- 
titute of  spiritual  life  ;  nor,  on  the  other,  that  he  no  sooner 
believes  than  he  lives." — p.  202. 

Here  .we  are  plainly  told  that  life  has  its  commence- 
ment in  the  first  act  of  the  new  series — that  faith  is  the 
first  act,  and  that  a  man  no  sooner  performs  that  act  than 
lie  lives.  From  which  it  clearly  follows,  that  a  single  act 
constitutes  that,  to  constitute  which  the  whole  of  a  series 
of  acts  is  necessary. 

The  most  formidable  objection  brought  against  the 
Scriptural  doctrine  of  regeneration  is,  that  it  is  "physical.''^ 
This  word,  physical,  seems  to  be  the  champion  argument 
— the  Goliath  of  the  host.  We  find  him,  ever  and  anon, 
stalking  forth  on  the  field  of  controversy,  armed  in  dread- 
ful italics,  and  frowning  defiance.  But  it  requires  no  ex- 
traordinary prowess  to  prostrate  and  decapitate  him  with 
his  own  sword.  The  objection  is  perfectly  harmless. 
The  term  "  physical,"  as  we  have  seei^,  is    ambiguous. 


,132  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

Our  New  School  friends  choose  to  call  every  thing  per- 
taining to  man  physical,  except  his  voluntary  actions.  If, 
therefore,  the  change  affects  any  thing  but  his  voluntary 
actions,  it  must,  of  course,  be  a  physical  change.  This 
sapient  argument  amounts  to  this,  and  no  more  :  Your 
doctrine,  that  regeneration  consists  in  something  more 
than  a  change  of  voluntary  exercises,  is  false  and  absurd, 
because  it  represents  the  change  as  consisting  in  some- 
thing more  than  a  change  of  voluntary  exercises. 

Mr.  D.  affects  to  find  a  number  of  weighty  objections 
arising  out  of  the  practical  influence  of  the  doctrine  he 
opposes — "  its  deleterious  effects  on  practical  piety." 
These  he  intimates  are  very  numerous.  "It  does  not  com- 
port with  the  design  of"  his  "  work  to  enumerate  them 
all."  Some  of  them  are,  in  our  opinion,  wholly  imaginary ; 
-while  others  are  highly  creditable  to  the  doctrine  against 
which  they  are  urged.  It  does  not  comport  with  our 
design  to  review  all  the  sophistries  of  Mr.  D.'s  book,  but 
we  will  venture  to  notice  one  of  these  objections.  It 
has  some  peculiarities,  and  may  possibly  work  sudden 
conviction  in  minds  of  kindred  taste  with  the  one  in 
which  it  originated.  He  says,  "  Its  crippling  and  be- 
numbing effects  have  long  been  felt  in  the  churches, 
where  there  has  been  intelligence  associated  with  piety ; 
and  where  ignorance  has  obtained,  the  most  wild  and  fa- 
natical delusions  have  flowed  from  it.  Weak-minded  and 
superstitious  persons,  considering  regeneration  to  be  an 
act  of  physical  poAver,  and  altogether  unobserving  of  their 
own  conscious  exercises,  have  mistaken  excitements  of 
feeling  and  reveries  of  imagination  for  the  impulses  and 
visions  of  the  Spirit.  We  were  once  called  to  see  a 
lecherous  female,  who  supposed  herself  near  death,  and 
was  exulting  in  the  conviction  that  she  had  been  born 
again,  produced  by  the  ease  of  body  and  revery  of  imagi- 
nation, induced  by  the  use  of  laudanum,  and  whose  belief 


NEW  DIVINITY — REGENERATION.  133 

in  the  Spirit's  direct  and  powerful  agency  on  the  soul 
was  not  to  be  shaken,  but  who  lived  long  enough  to  return 
to  her  wicked  ways,  and  prove  it  all  to  have  been  a  delusion." 
What  would  be  the  appropriate  "  voluntary  exercise"  in 
view  of  such  an  outrage  on  the  decencies  of  theological 
controversy,  whether  pity  or  indignation,  it  is  difficult  to 
decide.  What  bearing,  we  ask,  has  this  case  on  the  doc- 
trine in  question  ?  Might  she  not  as  easily  have  been  de- 
luded with  the  supposition  that  she  had  "submitted?"  Who 
would  be  compelled  to  acknowledge  her  a  genuine  convert, 
even  supposing  her  belief  in  the  Spirit's  direct  and  power- 
ful agency  could  not  be  shaken  ?  But  since  the  case  has 
been  immortalized  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  odium 
on  the  doctrine  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  Christian 
community,  we  shall  dispose  of  it  by  showing  that  the 
female  in  question  exhibited  all  the  marks  of  genuine  New 
School  conversion.  In  the  first  place,  all  her  depravity 
consisted  in  intelligent  voluntary  exercises.  These  may 
be  as  eflectually  interrupted  by  laudanum  as  by  any  other 
means.  Of  course,  while  she  was  under  the  influence  of 
laudanum  she  Avas  free  from  depravity,  and  therefore  a 
Christian.  But  supposing  that  the  effect  of  the  laudanum 
was  not  sufficient  to  suspend  the  voluntary  exercises,  the 
case  is  not  altered.  There  was  evidently  a  change  in  the 
character  of  her  voluntary  exercises.  She  commenced  a 
"  new  series."  She  sends  for  a  minister,  icills  to  be  a 
Christian,  and  a  change  of  purpose  is  all  that  is  necessary 
to  make  her  one ;  and  exults  in  the  conviction  that  the 
change  has  taken  place.  As  to  her  living  long  enough  to 
return  to  her  wicked  ways,  that  does  not  necessarily  prove 
that  she  was  under  a  delusion.  Mr.  D.  does  not  hold  that 
Christians  live  without  sin.  He  understands  the  Apostle 
Paul  to  be  speaking  of  his  own  experience,  in  his  regene- 
rate state,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventh  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  where  he  says,  "  For  we  know 


134  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

that  the  law  is  spiritual,  but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin," 
&c.  He  tells  us  that  "  of  whatever  deviations  from  the 
law  the  apostle  was  guilty,  they  were  to  be  attributed  to  the 
influence  of  sin,  which  he  personifies,  and  not  to  the  deep 
and  fixed  principles  of  his  renovated  character.  His  will 
in  the  main  was  right,  but  it  was  resisted,  counteracted, 
and  ofttimes  overpowered  by  various  considerations,  of 
which  he  did  not,  cordially  and  deliberately  approve,  nor 
of  that  which  they  led  him  to  do."  Now  we  have  only  to 
apply  these  explanations  to  her  case,  and  her  subsequent 
sinning  is  accounted  for,  without  supposing  her  deluded. 
It  may  be  "  attributed  to  the  influence  of  sin  personified, 
and  not  to  the  deep  and  fixed  principles  of"  her  "  reno- 
vated character."  Her  "  will,  in  the  main,"  may  have 
been  "  right,"  "  but  resisted,  counteracted,  and  ofttimes 
-overpowered  by  various  considerations,  of  which"  she 
"  did  not  cordially  approve,  nor  of  that  which  they  led" 
her  "  to  do." 


CHAPTER  XII. 

REGENERATION    CONTINUED. 

It  is  clearly  inferable,  from  the  doctrines  reviewed  in 
the  preceding  chapters,  that  one  single  act  of  the  mind — 
the  very  first  ivhich  involves  the  smallest  degree  of  conformity 
to  the  will  of  God,  no  matter  what  its  specific  character  may 
he,  constitutes  regeneration,  and  changes  a  man  in  one  mo- 
ment from  an  impenitent  rebel  into  a  Christian.  According 
to  this  system,  any  act,  professing  to  be  preparatory  or 
conducive  to  a  change  of  heart,  must  be  construed  into  a 
wilful  tampering  with  solemn  obligation.  It  is  nothing 
more  nor  less,  than  purposely  withholding  from  God  what 
the  sinner  is  able  to  render  at  once,  on  the  pretext  that 


«> 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION,  135 

there  is  something  to  be  attended  to  by  way  of  prepara- 
tion. What  is  this  but  downright  rebellion  ?  Indeed,  the 
rebellion,  which  consists  in  a  prompt  and  honest  refusal 
to  obey,  would  be  far  less  aggravated  than  that  which  pro- 
fesses to  be  preparing  to  do  what  may  be  done  at  any 
moment,  if  the  individual  of  whom  it  is  required  is  only 
willing,  and  which  he  postpones  merely  because  he  pre- 
fers to  attend  first  to  something  else.  Consequently,  that 
one  act  by  which  he  wills,  or  purposes,  or  begins  to  obey 
God,  or  turns  aside  in  any  loay  from  unqualified  rebellion, 
changes  him,  in  one  moment,  from  an  impenitent  rebel  to  a 
Christian. 

This  consequence  is  not  denied.  It  is  also  incorporated 
into  the  system,  constitutes  one  of  its  distinctive  tenets, 
and  is  frequently  and  unequivocally  asserted. 

Dr.  Beecher,  in  his  "  Views  in  Theology,"  remarks, 
"  The  graces  of  the  Spirit  admit  not  of  a  progressive  crea- 
tion. Love  or  enmity,  penitence  or  impenitence,  faith  or 
unbelief,  are  the  only  positive  conditions  of  the  human 
mind.  There  is  and  can  be  no  such  thing  as  love,  peni- 
tence, or  faith,  half  formed  and  progressive  to  a  comple- 
tion."—p.  203. 

This  passage  plainly  discloses  the  opinion,  that  one 
single  act  changes  the  sinner  from  total  depravity  to  holi- 
ness. The  first  and  faintest  relenting  of  the  enmity  to 
God — one  single  act  of  repentance  or  faith,  is  sufficient  to 
make  a  Christian.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  repentance 
and  faith  begim  and  progressive  to  a  completion.  There 
is  no  process  from  total  depravity  to  entire  holiness — no 
transition  state.  The  only  alternatives  are  the  impenitence, 
\mbelief,and  enmity,  of  the  determined  rebel,  or  the  sanctity 
of  the  undoubted  and  full-grown  Christian. 

Dr.  Skinner  and  President  Beecher  give  the  following 
direction  in  "  Hints  to  Aid  Christians  in  their  Efibrts  to 
Convert  Men  to  God."     **  By  all  means  avoid  making  the 


136  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

impression  on  the  minds  of  those  with  whom  you  converse, 
that  the  work  of  becoming  religious  requires  a  considera- 
ble time  to  be  spent  in  protracted  efforts.  Let  them  know 
that  to  become  religious  is  an  intelligent,  voluntary,  indi- 
visible act  of  the  mind,  in  which  it  ceases  to  rebel  against 
God,  submits  to  his  authority,  and  accepts  his  mercy. 
Tell  them  that  to  perform  this  act  requires  no  length  of 
time,  and  no  protracted  effort ;  that  it  may  be  done  at  this 
time,  and  in  this  place  ;  and  that  if  they  depart  from  this 
place  without  performing  this  act,  they  go  in  the  spirit  of 
a  stouter  rebellion,  and  may  bring  upon  themselves  swift 
and  sudden  destruction." — p.  43. 

This  language  is  plain,  and  to  the  purpose.  It  informs 
us,  that  becoming  religious  is  one  indivisible  act,  the  per- 
formance of  which  requires  no  length  of  time,  and  no  pro- 
'  tracted  effort,  but  may  be  done  in  any  place,  and  at  any 
time  ;  and  that  this  one  act  is  that  by  which  a  man  ceases 
to  be  a  rebel  against  God ;  (so  that  of  course  he  is  a  rebel 
until  he  performs  it ;)  and  no  matter  what  other  acts  he 
may  perform,  if  he  goes  without  performing  this  one  indi- 
visible act,  he  goes  in  the  spirit  of  a  stouter  rebellion  ;  and 
that  this  act  is  that  by  which  he  not  only  ceases  to  rebel, 
but  likewise  submits  to  God,  and  accepts  of  his  mercy. 
Surely,  nothing  need  be  plainer  than  this. 

This  doctrine  is  echoed  by  the  Christian  Spectator  in 
a  review  of  the  work  just  referred  to.  The  reviewer  says, 
•'  Let  him  (the  sinner)  also  be  made  to  feel  that  every 
thing  done  by  him,  short  of  making  a  new  heart,  is  only 
resisting  the  last  hope  of  a  lost  soul." — p.  242,  vol.  iv,  No.  2. 
It  is  strongly  reasserted  in  the  same  number,  in  an  arti- 
cle on  intercessory  prayer.  The  writer  says,  "  This  is 
the  way  to  get  out  of  his  dilemma.  ■  It  requires  only  one 
simple,  indivisible  act,  and  can  never  occupy  more  than  a 
moment  of  time.  It  is  an  act  which  he  is  bound  by  every 
possible  obligation  to  perform  immediately  ;  and,  to  make 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  137 

the  point  as  clear  as  possible,  we  will  add,  that  act  in 
which  a  sinner  ceases  from  his  rebellion,  and  accepts  of 
mercy  and  salvation  on  God's  terms." — p.  274. 

Here  we  are  plainly  told  that  it  requires  but  one  simple, 
indivisible  act,  which  the  sinner  is  bound  to  perform,  to 
rescue  him  from  his  dilemma ;  that  it  is  by  this  act  that 
the  sinner  ceases  from  his  rebellion,  and  accepts  of 
mercy  and  salvation  on  God's  terms,  and,  of  course,  be- 
comes a  Christian  ;  that  he  is  under  obligation  to  perform 
this  act  immediately ;  that  it  can  never  occupy  but  a  mo- 
ment of  time,  and  that  any  thing  short  of  this  act,  or  mak- 
ing a  new  heart,  is  only  resisting  "  the  last  hope  of  a  lost 
soul." 

The  Rev,  Mr.  Duffield  says,  "  Regeneration  is  the  com- 
mencement of  the  life  that  has  been  lost — the  rational  soul 
of  man  beginning  to  act  appropriately  in  the  exercise  of  its 
moral  powers  or  capacities — his  mind,  and  will,  and  heart, 
being  directed  to  God  as  the  supreme  and  chief  end." — 
p.  195. 

Again :  "  This  life  commences  with  his  faith,  or  belief 
in  the  testimony  of  God — the  first  in  the  series  of  those 
acts  and  exercises  in  which  it  consists." — p.  197. 

Again  :  "  The  life  of  the  rational  soul,  it  has  been  seen, 
consisted  originally  in  the  relative  series  of  those  actions 
appropriate  to  its  necessitabilities  and  capacities,  in  the 
perception,  approbation,  pursuit,  and  enjoyment  of  the 
divine  favour,  as  its  true  and  supreme  felicity.  This  life 
has  been  lost.  Men  are  naturally  opposed  to  God,  as 
shall  be  shown  hereafter.  Regeneration  is  the  commence- 
ment of  spiritual  life.  That  life  must  have  its  commence- 
ment in  some  act  or  exercise  which  is  ihe  first  in  the  series P 
—p.  201. 

Again  :  "  Now  it  is  obvious,  that  there  is  a  natural  ten- 
dency of  the  truths  and  facts  revealed  in  the  Scriptures, 
to  induce  those  exercises,  appropriate  to  the  capacities, 


138  NEW  DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 

conditions,  and  relations  of  men,  171  the  commencement  of 
which  consists  regeneration.^^ — p.  533. 

Examples  from  this  author  might  be  multiplied,  but 
these  are  quite  sufficient  to  disclose  his  views  on  this  sub- 
ject. He  tells  us  that  spiritual  life  consists  in  appropriate 
action,  or  exercise  of  the  powers  of  the  soul ;  that  this 
life,  which  was  lost,  is  restored  by  regeneration ;  that  re- 
generation is  beginning  to  act  appropriately  ;  that  life  must 
have  its  commencement  in  some  act  or  exercise,  and  that 
the  act  in  which  it  commences  is  the  Jirst  in  the  new 
series. 

Mr'.  Barnes,  who  is  much  more  cautious  in  his  develop- 
ments of  New  Divinity  than  many  who  have  not  been 
placed  in  such  delicate  and  perplexing  circumstances,  ex- 
emplifies the  tendency  of  his  theory  in  this  direction,  and 
proclaims  his  opinion  in  the  following  definition  of  regene- 
'ration,  contained  in  his  sermon  on  "  The  Way  of  Salva- 
tion." "  It  is,"  says  he,  "  that  revolution  of  character, 
when  a  man  ceases  to  be  a  sinner  total  and  unqualified,  and 
begins  to  be  a  man  of  holiness." 

This  passage  is  explicit.  It  is  certainly  by  the  first 
good  act  that  a  man  ceases  to  be  a  sinner  total  a7id  unquali- 
fied; that  act  we  are  told  is  regeneration,  and  consequently 
it  makes  him  a  Christian.  Regeneration  is  not,  according 
to  this  theory,  that  "  revolution  of  character"  by  which  a 
penitent  struggling  with  innate  depravity,  and  believing  in 
Jesus  Christ,  is,  in  view  of  his  previous  faith  and  peni- 
tence, graciously  delivered  from  its  bondage.  The  very 
first  movement  of  the  mind — the  very  first  thought — the 
first  volition  by  which  he  turns  aside  from  total  and  wn- 
qualified  rebellion,  is  regeneration. 

This  doctrine  is  strongly  asserted  by  Mr.  Lord,  the  New- 
York  author  of  "  Views  in  Theology."  He  objects  to 
*'  that  definition  of  regeneration  which  exhibits  it  as  a 
change  of  the  governing  purpose  in  respect  to  the  object 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  139 

of  supreme  affection,  or  a  mere  determination  to  love  and 
serve  God."  He  affirms  that  it  is  "  at  variance  with  the 
divine  word,  the  laws  of  our  agency,  and  the  testimony 
of  consciousness."  We  are  not  to  suppose,  from  this  lan- 
guage, that  he  objects  to  this  definition  as  falling  short 
of  regeneration,  although  that  would  naturally  be  the  first 
impression.  He  contends  that  a  "  determination  to  love 
and  serve  God,  or  make  him  the  object  of  supreme  regard," 
cannot  in  every  instance  be  "  the  first  act  of  obedience." 
To  be  an  obedient  act,  he  argues,  "  it  must  spring  from  a 
present  love  or  preference  of  God  ;"  it  must  be  a  "  conse- 
quence of  right  affections,  and  therefore  not  the  first  obe- 
dient act."  The  argument  is,  that  this  determination 
to  love  and  serve  God  implies  a  previous  regeneration, 
and  therefore  cannot  constitute  regeneration.  But  his 
principal  objection  to  this  definition  is,  that  it  proceeds  on 
the  assmnption,  "  that  the  first  obedient  act,  whatever  it 
may  be,  is  in  every  instance  of  the  same  species,  as  an 
act  of  determination,  of  submission,  of  love,  or  of  faith,  in 
distinction  from  all  other  forms  of  obedience." 

He  contends  that  this  is  not  the  case,  and  that  the  na- 
ture of  the  first  obedient  act  will  be  determined  by  the 
nature  of  the  mind's  perceptions  at  the  time ;  "  and  may 
differ  in  its  form  in  different  individuals,  according  as  their 
perceptions  vary  in  nature  or  extent,  or  the  relations  differ 
in  which  God,  or  the  tiauhs  that  respect  him,  are  contem- 
plated." He  goes  on  to  affirm  that  "  in  some  it  may  be 
self-abhorrence,  humility,  penitence,  approval  of  the  divine 
law ;  in  others,  an  adoring  acquiescence  in  the  purity  and 
rectitude  of  God,  submission  to  his  will,  complacency  in 
his  benevolence,  gratitude  for  his  mercy,  reliance  on  his 
promises,  a  joyful  acceptance  of  salvation  through  Christ, 
or  any  other  form  of  obedient  agency  in  which  there  is  no 
reference  to  a  previous  state  of  obedience." — p.  360. 

Here  it  is  plainly  inculcated,  that  not  only  does  the  very 


140  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

first  act,  performed  in  obedience  to  the  divine  requirement, 
constitute  or  presuppose  regeneration,  but  that  it  is  no 
matter  what  the  specific  form  of  the  act  may  be.  It  may- 
be the  first  act  of  self-abhorrence,  humility,  penitence, 
faith,  gratitude,  or  any  other  form  of  agency  which  the 
law  of  God  may  require.  Hence,  if  the  law  of  God 
require  of  us  a  desire  for  salvation,  the  first  emotion  of 
desire  is  sufficient  to  secure  the  favour  of  God  and  re- 
generation. 

Mr.  Finney,  in  his  lecture  on  "  Directions  to  Sinners," 
uses  similar  language.  "  It  is  a  great  error,"  he  says,  "to 
suppose  that  any  one  particular  exercise  is  always  fore- 
most in  conversion,  or  that  every  sinner  must  have  faith 
first,  or  submission  first.  It  is  not  true,  either  in  philoso- 
phy or  fact.  There  is  a  great  variety  in  people's  exer- 
cises. Whatever  point  is  taken  hold  of  between  God  and 
the  sinner,  when  the  sinner  yields  that,  he  is  converted. 
Whatever  the  particular  exercise  may  be,  if  it  includes  obe- 
dience of  heart  to  God  on  any  point,  it  is  true  conversion. 
When  he  yields  one  point  to  God's  authority,  he  is  ready 
to  yield  all.  When  he  changes  his  mind,  and  obeys  in 
one  thing  because  it  is  God's  will,  he  will  obey  in  other 
things,  so  far  as  he  sees  it  to  be  God's  will." — p.  344. 

Additional  quotations  are  unnecessary.  Those  Avhich 
we  have  given  are  full  and  explicit,  and  from  distinguished 
sources.  We  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  affirming, 
that  the  New  School  preachers  and  writers  never  contra- 
dict these  doctrines,  and  teach  those  which  are  more 
Scriptural ;  but  that  they  belong  strictly  and  properly  to 
the  system  of  New  Divinity,  and  are  actually  promulgated 
by  its  leading  abettors. 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  141 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

REGENERATION    CONTINUED. 

As  the  dangerous  positions  exposed  in  the  preceding 
chapter  have  been  asserted  and  reiterated,  both  from  the 
pulpit  and  the  press,  we  will  endeavour  to  disprove  them 
by  comparing  them  with  that  infallible  criterion  of  truth, 
the  holy  Scriptures. 

Before  entering  immediately  upon  the  argument,  we 
would  remark,  that  the  error  of  the  first  position  does  not 
consist  in  asserting  that  one  single  act  ultimately  intro- 
duces a  man  to  the  blessing  of  justification,  and  its  con- 
comitant attainments.  It  is  certain  that,  however  length- 
ened may  be  the  series  of  acts  and  exercises  which 
precedes  that  blessing,  there  must  be  one  of  that  series 
with  which  it  is  immediately  connected.  For  illustra- 
tion, I  cannot  pass  from  the  room  in  which  I  now  write, 
and  enter  another,  a  mile  distant,  by  one  single  step.  By 
successive  steps  I  must  leave  one  apartment,  and  arrive 
at  the  threshold  of  the  other.  But  when  I  arrive  there, 
it  is  ultimately  by  one  single  step  that  I  cross  the  thresh- 
old, and  enter  that  apartment.  And  if  I  refuse  to  take 
that  one  step,  I  must  remain  without,  notwithstanding  all 
the  previous  steps  I  have  taken.  Thus  it  is  with  the  sin- 
ner who  turns  to  God  and  seeks  his  favour.  He  enters 
upon  a  series  of  exercises,  but  there  is  one  single  act  of 
faith  which  at  last  secures  him  justification.  The  doctrine 
that  we  object  to  is,  that  one  single  act  changes  a  man 
from  an  impenitent  rebel  to  a  Christian ! — that  there  is 
no  process  in  the  change  ;  that  one  moment  the  sinner  is 
a  rebel  total  and  unqualified — growing  worse  instead  of 
better — and  the  next  moment  he  is  a  Christian  ! 

To  state  the  doctrine  fully  must,  we  think,  be  sufficient 


142  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

to  refute  it.  Look  at  it  again  !  A  man  is  rapidly  aggra- 
vating his  rebellion,  by  every  succeeding  act  growing 
worse  and  worse — when  lo  !  just  as  his  rebellion  is  at  its 
height,  without  one  single  intervening  thought,  or  step, 
conducing  to  such  a  change,  in  one  moment  of  time,  by 
the  very  next  volition,  he  makes  himself  a  Christian.  He 
leaps,  by  one  single  bound,  as  sudden  as  the  lightning's 
flash,  from  one  confirmed  state  of  mind — -a  state  of  mind 
becoming  more  and  more  confirmed  and  inveterate  by  each 
successive  act — to  another  state  of  mind,  so  different  from 
the  former,  that  the  change  is  denominated  by  the  inspired 
writers,  who  best  understand  it,  a  new  creation — being 
brought  from  darkness  to  light — translated  from  the  king- 
dom of  Satan  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  Is  this  philo- 
sophical 1  We  aver  that  it  is  downright  nonsense.  But 
this  is  a  matter  to  be  settled  by  the  authority  of  Scripture. 
To  the  Scriptures,  therefore,  we  turn,  for  their  imerring 
decision. 

In  the  first  place  they  represent  it  to  be  the  duty  of  men 
to  hear  the  loord  of  God.  The  Apostle  Paul  reasons  thus 
on  the  subject :  "  How  then  shall  they  call  on  him  in 
whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  and  how  shall  they  be- 
lieve in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  and  how  shall 
they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?"  Again  :  "  So  then  faith 
cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the  Avord  of  God." 
While  many  are  placed  in  circumstances  that  render  their 
hearing  the  word  of  God  almost  inevitable,  there  are  thou- 
sands who  utterly  neglect  or  refuse  to  hear  it.  The  word 
of  the  Lord  came  unto  Ezekiel,  saying,  "  Son  of  man,  thou 
dwellest  in  the  midst  of  a  rebellious  house,  which  have 
eyes  to  see  and  see  not,  ears  they  have  to  hear  and  hear 
not,  for  they  are  a  rebellious  house."  Our  Saviour  com- 
plained of  the  people  thus :  "  For  this  people's  heart  is 
waxed  gross,  and  their  eyes  have  they  closed  ;  lest  at  any 
time  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their 


NEW  DIVINITY*— REGENERATION.  143 

ears,  and  should  understand  with  their  hearts,  and  should 
be  converted,  and  I  should  heal  them."  Hence  the  pecu- 
liarly solemn  and  emphatic  manner  in  which  it  is  enjoined, 
"  Give  ear,  O  ye  heavens,  and  I  will  speak ;  and  hear,  O 
earth,  the  words  of  my  mouth.  O  earth,  earth,  earth,  hear 
the  word  of  the  Lord."  "  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased,  hear  ye  him."  "  And  it  shall 
come  to  pass,  that  every  soul  which  will  not  hear  that 
prophet  shall  be  destroyed  from  among  the  people.  Who 
hath  ears  to  hear  let  him  hear." 

But  simply  hearing  the  word  of  God,  although  a  duty, 
is  not  sufficient.  Our  Saviour  and  his  apostles  cautioned 
those  who  heard,  to  take  heed  how  they  heard.  Attention 
is  necessary — attention  to  the  import  and  application  of  the 
message.  Our  Saviour  complained  of  some  iu  his  day  in 
this  language  :  "  Therefore  speak  I  to  them  in  parables  ; 
because  seeing  they  see  not,  and  hearing  they  hear  not, 
neither  do  they  understand."  This  language  plainly  im- 
plies that  the  word  may  be  so  heard,  that  the  effect  is  the 
same  as  if  it  were  not  heard.  It  fails  to  make  the  neces- 
sary impression  on  the  understanding.  This  subject  the 
Saviour  illustrates  by  the  parable  of  the  sower.  "  When 
any  one  heareth  the  word  of  the  kingdom  and  imderstand- 
eth  it  not,  then  cometh  the  wicked  one,  and  catcheth  away 
that  which  was  sown  in  his  heart.  This  is  he  which  re- 
ceiveth  seed  by  the  way-side."  There  are  thousands  of 
"  way-side"  hearers.  They  listen  so  carelessly,  that  they 
immediately  lose  the  impression  of  what  they  have  heard. 
Now  if  they  were  wholly  incapable  of  being  more  deeply 
impressed,  they  would  be  inexcusable.  But  this  is  not 
the  case.  It  is  wilful  inattention  which  makes  the  hearing 
of  none  effect.  Hence  the  hearing  required  is  sometimes 
qualified  by  the  word  "  diligently :"  "  Wherefore  do  ye 
spend  money  for  that  which  is  not  bread,  and  your  labour 
for  that  which  satisfieth  nof?  Hearken  diligently  unto  me, 


144  NEW  DlVIxMTY REGENERATION. 

and  eat  ye  that  which  is  good,  and  let  your  soul  delight 
itself  in  fatness,"  Isaiah  Iv,  2.  Again  :  "  If  thou  wilt  dili- 
gently  hearken  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  wilt 
do  that  which  is  right  in  his  sight,  and  wilt  give  ear  to  his 
commandments,  and  keep  all  his  statutes,  I  will  put  none 
of  those  diseases  upon  thee  which  I  have  brought  upon 
the  Egyptians  ;  for  I  am  the  Lord  that  healeth  thee," 
Exodus  XV,  26.  While  therefore  the  children  of  men  are 
required  to  place  themselves  in  a  situation  for  the  word  of 
God  to  fall  upon  their  outward  ears,  they  are  likewise  re- 
quired to  give  it  the  attention  of  their  understanding. 

The  Scriptures  likewise  charge  the  impenitent  with  a 
want  of  consideration  of  divine  things.  Jehovah  complains 
thus :  "  The  ox  knoweth  his  owner,  and  the  ass  his  mas- 
ter's crib,  but  Israel  doth  not  know,  my  people  doth  not 
consider."  "  And  they  consider  not  in  their  hearts  that  I 
■  remember  all  their  wickedness."  This  exercise  is  dis- 
tinctly and  separately  required  and  enforced  by  the  law 
of  God.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  Consider  your 
ways."  "  O  that  they  were  wise,  that  they  understood  this, 
that  they  would  consider  their  latter  end."  "  Now  consider 
this,  ye  that  forget  God,  lest  I  tear  you  in  pieces  and  there 
be  none  to  deliver." 

Now  consideration  is  an  exercise  distinct  from  that  of 
simple  attention.  A  man  may  give  his  attention  to  a  state- 
ment or  argument,  so  as  to  understand  it  perfectly,  and 
then  dismiss  the  subject  from  his  mind,  and  devote  his 
meditation  wholly  to  other  subjects,  and  forget  what  he 
has  heard.  Whereas,  to  consider,  is  to  reflect  upon  a 
subject,  review  it  with  serious  deliberation.  The  Apostle 
James  illustrates  this  point  in  the  following  manner :  "  For 
if  any  be  a  hearer  of  the  word  and  not  a  doer,  he  is  like 
unto  a  man  beholding  his  natural  face  in  a  glass ;  for  he 
beholdeth  himself,  and  gocth  his  way,  and  straightway 
forgetteth  what  manner  of  man  he  was.     But  whoso  look- 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  145 

tth  into  the  perfect  law  of  liberty,  and  continueth  therein, 
he,  being  not  a  forgetful  hearer,  but  a  doer  of  the  work, 
this  man  shall  be  blessed  in  his  deed." 

Again :  the  law  of  God  requires  of  the  sinner,  in  order 
to  his  acceptance  and  salvation,  that  he  solemnly  choose 
the  service  of  God,  and  make  up  his  mind,  and  purpose 
to  obey  his  commandments.  Hence  Joshua  thus  addressed 
the  children  of  Israel :  "  And  if  it  seem  evil  unto  you  to 
serve  the  Lord,  choose  ye  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve ; 
whether  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served,  that  were  on 
the  other  side  of  the  flood,  or  the  gods  of  the  Amorites 
among  whom  you  dwell :  but  as  for  me  and  my  house,  we 
will  serve  the  Lord."  And  even  if  there  were  no  passage 
in  the  Bible  specifying  this  act  of  the  mind  as  necessary 
to  becoming  a  servant  of  God,  it  is  too  plain  a  matter  to 
be  overlooked.  Can  God  be  supposed  to  approve  and  ac- 
cept of  a  man,  who,  with  a  knowledge  of  his  law,  hesi- 
tates, and  is  undecided  which  course  he  will  pursue  ? 
Besides,  whatever  may  be  the  nature  of  that  effort  by 
which  we  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  representa- 
tions which  are  made  of  its  difficulty,  prove  that  it  requires 
a  detennined  state  of  mind,  a  fixedness  of  purpose.  The 
Saviour  admonishes  us  thus  :  "  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the 
strait  gate,  for  many  I  say  unto  you  shall  seek  to  enter  in 
and  shall  not  be  able."  Again :  "  For  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  suff'ereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force." 
But  why  do  I  attempt  to  prove  this  point  ?  Who  could 
think  of  calling  in  question  this  position  ;  or  of  asserting 
that  a  man  may  be  saved  without  ever  making  up  his  mind 
to  serve  God  l 

Let  us  now  look  for  a  moment  at  the  result  of  our  in- 
quiries. We  have  ascertained  the  necessity  of  four  dis- 
tinct and  successive  acts  and  exercises  of  the  mind,  in 
order  to  acceptance  with  God,  and  regeneration.  But,  if 
hearing  tlie  word  of  God,  and  giving  strict  attention  to  the 

7 


146  NEW  DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 

message,  and  serious  reflection  upon  it,  were  not  distioct 
exercises,  and  distinctly  enjoined ;  if,  on  the  contrary, 
they  may  be  supposed  to  constitute  but  one  exercise,  the 
requisition  last  noticed  is  sufficient  to  demolish  the  posi- 
tion, that  one  single  act  of  the  mind  changes  a  man  from 
an  impenitent  rebel  to  a  Cloristian.  For,  besides  the  fact 
that  two  exercises  are  distinctly  and  peremptorily  enjoined, 
the  choice  or  purpose,  to  be  an  intelligent  act,  and  not 
merely  the  result  of  caprice,  must  be  in  view  of  some  rea- 
son, and  therefore  necessarily  presupposes  the  hearing, 
attention,  and  deliberation  which  are  enjoined  ;  so  that  no 
man  can  even  make  up  his  mind  to  become  a  Christian 
without  performing  a  series  of  acts. 

But  this  choice  or  determination  to  serve  God  does  not 
terminate  the  series.  It  is  not  enough.  The  sinner  is 
likewise  required  to  confess  his  sins.  "  He  that  covereth 
his  sins  shall  not  prosper,  but  he  that  confesseth  and  for- 
saketh  his  sins  shall  find  mercy,"  Prov.  xxviii,  13.  Again: 
"  If  they  shall  confess  their  iniquity,  and  the  iniquity  of 
their  fathers,  with  the  trespass  which  they  trespassed 
against  me,  and  also  that  they  have  walked  contrary  to  me; 
and  that  I  also  have  walked  contrary  to  them,  and  have 
brought  them  into  the  land  of  their  enemies,  if  their  un- 
circumcised  hearts  be  humbled,  and  they  accept  of  the 
punishment  of  their  iniquity ;  then  will  I  remember  my 
covenant  with  Jacob,  and  also  my  covenant  with  Isaac, 
and  also  my  covenant  with  Abraham  will  I  remember ; 
and  I  will  remember  their  land,"  Lev.  xxvi,  40.  Again : 
"  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive 
us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness," 
1  John  i,  9. 

The  confession  required  in  these  passages  is  obviously 
in  order  to  salvation.  It  is  the  confession  of  the  guilty 
sinner,  the  uncircumcised  in  heart,  that  he  may  obtain  for- 
giveness.   We  have  here,  not  only  an  additional  exercise, 


NEW  DIVINITY— REGENERATION.  147 

equally  necessary  with  those  previously  stated,  but  one 
which  clearly  implies  them,  especially  a  purpose  to  for- 
sake all  sin  and  obey  God.  Confessions  of  sin  which  are 
not  preceded  by  a  purpose  of  mind  to  forsake  it,  would  be 
an  insult  to  divine  authority.  Besides  all  this,  confession 
of  sin  itself  must  consist  rather  in  a  class  of  actions  than 
in  one  single  act. 

But  there  are  other  exercises  required.  The  sinner 
must  pray  to  God  for  mercy,  as  well  as  confess  his  sins. 
So  the  apostle  directed  Simon  the  sorcerer.  "  Thy  money 
perish  with  thee,  because  thou  hast  thought  that  the  gift 
of  God  may  be  purchased  with  money,  thou  hast  neither 
part  nor  lot  in  thie  matter :  for  thy  heart  is  not  right  in 
the  sight  of  God.  Repent  therefore  of  this  thy  wicked- 
ness, and  praij  God,  if  perhaps  the  thought  of  thy 
heart  may  be  forgiven  thee.  For  I  perceive  that  thou  art 
in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity,"  Acts 
viii,  20-23.  Isaiah  asserts  this  obligation  when  he  says, 
"  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found,  call  ye  upon 
him  while  he  is  near :  let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way, 
and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him  return 
unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him,  and  to 
our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon,"  Iv,  6.  It  is  en- 
joined by  the  mouth  of  the  Prophet  Jeremiah :  '*  Then 
shall  ye  call  upon  me,  and  I  Avill  hearken  unto  you.  And 
ye  shall  seek  me  and  shall  find  me,  when  ye  shall  search 
for  me  Avith  all  your  heart,"  Jer.  xxix,  12,  13. 

This  obligation  is  also  distinctly  recognised  by  the  fol- 
lowing passages  :  "  If  they  sin  against  thee,  (for  there  is 
no  man  that  sinneth  not,)  and  thou  be  angry  with  them, 
and  deliver  them  over  before  their  enemies,  and  they 
carry  them  away  captives  into  a  land  far  off  or  near ;  yet 
if  they  bethink  themselves  in  the  land  whither  they  are 
carried  captive,  and  turn  and  pray  unto  thee  in  the  land  of 
their  captivity,  whither  they  have  carried  them  captives, 


148  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

saying,  We  have  sinned,  we  have  done  amiss,  we  have 
dealt  wickedly,  &c.,  &c. :  then  hear  thou  from  the  hea- 
vens, even  from  thy  dwelling  place,  their  prayer  and  their 
supplication,  and  maintain  their  cause,  and/org-rue  thy  peo- 
ple which  have  sinned  against  thee,"  2  Chron.  vi,  36,  37,  39. 
Again :  "  Therefore  go  thou,  and  read  in  the  roll,  which 
thou  hast  written  from  my  mouth,  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
in  the  ears  of  the  people,  in  the  Lord's  house  upon  the 
fasting  day :  and  also  thou  shalt  read  them  in  the  ears  of 
all  Judah  that  come  out  of  their  cities.  It  may  be  they 
will  present  their  supplication  before  the  Lord,  and  will  re- 
turn every  one  from  his  evil  way  :  for  great  is  the  anger 
and  the  fury  that  the  Lord  hath  pronounced  against  them," 
Jer.  xxxvi,  6,  7.  Again :  "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that 
whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved," 
.  Rom.  X,  13. 

Repentance  is  required  in  order  to  salvation  :  "  Repent 
ye,  therefore,  and  be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out,"  Acts  iii,  19.  It  is  not  necessary  to  our  pre- 
sent purpose  to  define  repentance,  or  determine  its  relation 
to  all  the  other  exercises  with  which  it  is  connected.  It 
is  sufficient  that  it  is  required,  and  that  it  is  distinct  from 
other  required  acts.  This,  we  think,  is  undeniable.  What 
repentance  can  there  be  which  is  not  founded  on  a  con- 
viction of  sin,  and  of  the  justice  of  the  Almighty's  claims  ? 
But  this  conviction  must  result  from  a  previous  attention 
to,  and  consideration  of,  these  things.  And  while  repent- 
ance thus  plainly  presupposes  these  acts,  there  are  other 
acts  which  as  certainly  presuppose  repentance.  Tliis,  we 
think,  is  the  case  with  prayer  and  confession  of  sin. 

Again.  Faith  is  an  indispensable  prerequisite  to  salva- 
tion. "Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God." 
"  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved.  He  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."  Now,  it  can  scarcely  be  necessary  to 
attempt  to  prove  that  this  act  ia  distinct  from  many  of  those 


NEW  DIVimTY REGENERATION.  14& 

which  have  been  specified.  It  must,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
be  preceded  by  attention  to  the  word  of  God.  The  apostle 
tells  us  that  "  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
word  of  God."  Again  :  while  faith  must  be  preceded  by 
certain  acts,  there  are  other  acts  which  necessarily  pre- 
suppose faith.  For  instance  :  Can  a  man  repent  of  his 
sins  toward  God,  who  does  not  believe  in  the  existence 
of  a  God,  or  of  a  divine  government,  or  that  the  govern- 
ment of  God  lays  him  under  obligation  to  pursue  a  differ- 
ent course  of  conduct  to  that  which  he  has  pursued  ?  The 
apostle  settles  this  matter  definitely:  "And  how  shall  they 
call  on  him  on  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  For  he  that 
cometh  unto  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a 
rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him." 

It  may  present  a  difficulty  to  some  minds,  that  faith 
should  be  made  the  grand  consideration  in  view  of  which 
a  sinner  is  justified,  and  yet  be  required  to  precede  other 
acts  which  are  necessary.  It  is  not  faith  simply,  it  is  not 
any  one  act  of  faith,  or  faith  in  any  one  proposition,  or  any 
supposable  degree  of  faith,  which  justifies  the  ungodly,  but 
faith  in  certain  specified  truths,  and  such  a  degree  of  faith 
as  amounts  to  trust,  to  entire  confidence.  Thus  it  is  that 
those  acts  which  necessarily  presuppose  faith,  lead  on,  at 
the  same  time,  to  other  acts  of  faith,  and  increase  its 
strength,  until,  at  last,  that  faith  is  exercised  which  brings 
salvation. 

The  comprehensive  requisition  which  enjoins  that  we 
seek  the  favour  of  God,  is  sufficient  to  refute  the  doctrine, 
that  one  single  act  of  the  mind  constitutes  the  great  change. 
Seeking  God  doubtless  includes  all  that  is  necessary  to  be 
done.  But  search  for  an  object  implies,  that  from  some 
cause  or  causes  it  is  not  immediately  accessible,  and  that 
a  succession  of  efforts  must  be  made  to  obtain  it. 

These  exercises  are  represented  as  characterized  by 
distress  of  mind  in  a  greater  or  lesser  degree.   Indeed,  this 


150  NEW  DIVINITY REGKNKRATION. 

State  of  mind  is  made  obligatory.  Not  that  we  are  re- 
quired to  produce  it  by  direct  efforts  to  that  end,  but  we 
are  required  to  perform  acts  which  it  invariably  accom- 
panies. 

The  examples  of  conversion  recorded  in  the  Scriptures, 
will  be  found  decidedly  at  variance  with  this  dogma  of 
New  Divinity.     A  few  of  them  will  be  presented. 

Take  the  case  of  the  publican :  "  Two  men  went  up 
into  the  temple  to  pray :  the  one  a  Pharisee,  the  other  a 
publican.  The  Pharisee  stood  and  prayed  thus  with  him- 
self: God,  I  thank  thee  that  I  am  not  as  other  men  are,  ex- 
tortioners, unjust,  adulterers,  or  even  as  this  poor  publican : 
I  fast  twice  a  week :  I  give  tithes  of  all  that  I  possess. 
And  the  publican,  standing  afar  off,  would  not  lift  up  so 
much  as  his  eyes  to  heaven,  but  smote  upon  his  breast, 
saying,  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner !"  Luke  xviii. 

Here  are  presented  to  us  three  distinct  exercises. 
First,  he  was  deeply  distressed  on  account  of  his  sins,  as 
was  indicated  by  his  smiting  upon  his  breast,  and  by  his 
downcast  eyes  ;  secondly,  he  confessed  himself  a  sinner 
against  God ;  and,  thirdly,  he  prayed  for  mercy.  But 
while  these  acts  are  stated,  how  many  are  implied  ?  He 
had,  no  doubt,  heard  the  word  of  God,  given  to  it  the  at- 
tention of  his  mind,  seriously  considered  its  representa- 
tions of  his  condition,  and  the  claims  of  God,  yielded  the 
convictions  of  his  understanding  to  the  testimony  of  reve- 
lation, and  fully  purposed  to  forsake  his  sins  and  serve 
God.  And  now,  with  this  conviction  and  this  purpose,  he 
comes  to  the  temple  of  God,  to  humble  himself,  confess 
his  sins,  and  pray  for  salvation. 

Take  the  case  of  the  jailer.  Acts  xvi,  30.  He  was  con- 
vinced that  he  was  a  sinner,  and  exposed  to  punishment. 
He  inquired  of  the  apostle  what  he  must  do  to  be  saved. 
This  inquiry  was  sincere,  and  therefore  implied  a  desire  or 
determination  to  do  what  was   required.      The   apostle 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  151 

directed  him  to  perform  the  additional  act  of  believing  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  act  he  perfonned,  and  was 
converted,  and  rejoiced  in  God. 

Look  at  the  history  of  St.  Paul's  conversion.  When 
recovered  from  his  sudden  prostration,  he  said,  "  Who  art 
thou,  Lord  ?  And  the  Lord  said,  I  am  Jesus  whom  thou 
persecutest :  it  is  hard  for  thee  to  kick  against  the  pricks. 
And  he,  trembling  and  astonished,  said.  Lord,  what  wilt 
thou  have  me  to  do  ?"  The  Lord  declined  giving  him,  in 
person,  the  instructions  necessary,  but  directed  him  to 
Damascus,  saying,  "  Arise,  and  go  into  the  city,  and  it 
shall  be  told  thee  what  thou  shalt  do."  His  company  led 
him  to  Damascus,  where  he  fasted  and  prayed  for  three 
days.  There  Ananias  came  to  him,  and,  having  first  re- 
stored him  to  sight,  (for  the  vision  left  him  blind,)  and  in- 
formed him  of  the  revelation  he  had  received  respecting 
him,  addressed  him  thus  :  "  And  now  why  tarriest  thou  ? 
Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  Acts  xxii,  16.  Attending  to 
these  duties,  he  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  then  par- 
took of  food,  and  was  strengthened  in  body  as  well  as  in 
mind. 

Here  also  we  have  a  series  of  acts.  He  first,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  inquires,  "  Who  art  thou,  Lord  ?"  The  term 
"  Lord,"  in  this  interrogation,  is  used  merely  as  an  ex- 
pression of  respect,  like  the  word,  sir.  When  informed 
on  this  point,  he  relinquishes  his  designs  of  persecution, 
and  purposes  obedience  to  the  will  of  Christ.  When  he 
inquired  what  he  should  do,  it  was  no  doubt  his  fixed  pur- 
pose to  do  whatever  was  enjoined.  He  then,  in  obedience 
to  the  divine  direction,  proceeded  to  Damascus,  and  there 
fasted  and  prayed.  And  it  was  not  imtil  three  days  had 
elapsed,  that  Ananias  found  him  and  gave  him  the  direc- 
tions already  quoted,  in  attending  to  which,  he  received 
the  Holy  Ghost. 


153  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

The  parable  of  the  prodigal  son  furnishes  an  interest- 
ing illustration  of  this  subject,  Luke  xv,  11.  He  com- 
menced by  reflecting  on  his  sad  condition,  comparing  it 
with  that  of  the  servants  in  his  father's  house :  "  And  when 
he  came  to  himself  he  said,  How  many  hired  servants  in 
my  father's  house  have  bread  enough  and  to  spare,  and  I 
perish  with  hunger."  He  then  came  to  this  resolution — - 
/  will  arise  and  go  to  my  father,  and  will  say  unto  liim, 
Father,  I  have  sinned  against  heaven  and  before  thee,  and 
am  no  more  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son :  make  me  as  one 
of  thy  hired  servants."  He  then  proceeded  to  carry  his 
purpose  into  effect  by  returning  home,  making  the  humble 
confession,  and  presenting  the  equally  humble  petition 
which  his  feelings  and  judgment  dictated.  And  it  was 
at  this  point  that  he  met  with  the  compassion  and  forgive- 
ness of  his  father. 

David's  account  of  his  penitential  exercises  will  be 
found  equally  at  variance  with  the  New  School  theory, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  views  which  we  advocate : 
*'  Have  mercy  upon  me,  O  God,  according  to  thy  loving 
kindness  :  according  unto  the  multitude  of  thy  tender  mer- 
cies blot  out  my  transgressions.  Wash  me  thoroughly 
from  mine  iniquity,  and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin.  For  I 
acknowledge  my  transgression  :  and  my  sin  is  ever  before 
me.  Against  thee  only  have  I  sinned,  and  done  this  evil 
in  thy  sight :  that  thou  mightest  be  justified  when  thou 
speakest,  and  be  clear  when  thou  judgest.  Behold,  I  was 
shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me. 
Behold,  thou  desirest  truth  in  the  inward  parts  :  and  in 
the  hidden  part  thou  shall  make  me  to  know  wisdom. 
Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean :  wash  me, 
and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow.  Make  me  to  hear  joy 
and  gladness  ;  that  the  bones  which  thou  hast  broken  may 
rejoice.  Hide  thy  face  from  my  sins,  and  blot  out  all 
mine  iniquities.     Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  153, 

renew  a  right  spirit  within  me.  Cast  me  not  away  from 
thv  presence ;  and  take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me. 
Restore  to  me  the  joy  of  thy  salvation ;  and  uphold  me 
with  thy  free  spirit.  Then  will  I  teach  transgressors  thy 
wav,  and  sinners  shall  be  converted  unto  thee." — Psa.  li. 
Here  we  have  a  fixed  purpose  of  mind,  a  confession  of 
depravity  and  transgression,  an  earnest  prayer  both  for 
forgiveness  and  sanctification,  and  confidence  in  the  mercy 
of  God,  Perhaps  it  may  be  supposed,  by  some,  that  the 
aspect  of  the  question  is  changed  by  the  consideration, 
that  this  was  not  the  psalmist's  first  conversion,  but  his 
recovery  from  backsliding.  This  does  not  alter  the  case. 
The  instructions  of  Christ  to  those  who  have  left  their  first 
love  are  to  repent  and  do  their  first  works. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

REGENERATION    CONTINUED. 

We  have  seen  that  the  system  of  New  Divinity  teaches 
that  the  sinner,  in  becoming  religious,  is  changed,  in  one 
moment,  by  one  indivisible  act  of  the  mind,  from  the  con- 
dition of  an  impenitent  rebel  into  that  of  a  Christian. 
Against  this  doctrine  the  argument  of  the  preceding  chap- 
ter was  directed.  We  there  endeavoured  to  prove  that  the 
change  from  one  of  these  characters  to  the  other,  includes 
a  series  of  distinct  exercises — a  succession  of  changes. 
At  this  point  we  are  met  by  an  objection.  It  is  argued, 
that  those  exercises  wMch  are  supposed  to  precede  the 
one  act  by  which  a  man  becomes  a  Christian,  are  either 
penitent  and  believing,  or  impenitent  and  unbelieving.  If 
penitent  and  believing,  then  he  who  performs  them  is  al- 
ready a  Christian.     If  impenitent  and  unbelieving,  they 

7* 


154  NEW  DIVINITY'' — REGENERATION. 

cannot  possibly  be  acceptable  to  God,  or  conduce  to  a 
change  of  heart ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  must  accumulate 
guilt,  and  thus  separate  more  widely  between  him  and  his 
God.  This  objection  seems  to  be  relied  upon,  as  armed 
with  irresistible  power.  It  is  frequently  reiterated,  and 
may  be  made  to  look  very  plausible.  We  will  examine 
it  for  a  moment. 

It  evidently  assumes  that  there  are  no  degrees  of  re- 
pentance or  faith,  and  that  the  very  first  act  or  degree  of 
repentance  or  faith,  is  all  that  is  required  to  make  the 
Christian : — that  the  requisition  of  the  gospel  in  this  re- 
spect is  fully  met  at  once,  or  we  remain  wholly  impeni- 
tent and  unbelieving.  If  we  can  overthrow  this  assump- 
tion, the  objection  vanishes.  It  will  follow  that  we  may 
be  penitent  and  believing  to  some  extent,  and  yet  be  re- 
quired to  perform  acts  which  conduce  to  those  further 
degrees  of  penitence  and  faith  which  are  necessary  to  sal- 
vation. 

There  are  portions  of  the  Scriptures  which,  we  think, 
cannot  be  intelligibly  interpreted,  except  on  the  principle 
that  there  are  degrees  of  repentance.  What  are  we  to 
understand  by  that  passage  which  says,  "  Now  I  rejoice, 
not  that  ye  were  made  sorry,  but  that  ye  sorrowed  to  re- 
pentance :  for  ye  were  made  sorry  after  a  godly  sort,  that 
ye  might  receive  damage  by  us  in  nothing.  For  godly 
sorrow  worketh  repentance  to  salvation,  not  to  be  repented 
of;  but  the  sorrow  of  the  world  worketh  death,"  2  Cor. 
7-9.  Here  we  are  told  that  "  godly  sorrow  Avorketh  re- 
pentance unto  salvation."  An  attempt  may  be  made  to 
evade  the  force  of  this  passage,  by  asserting  that  sorrow 
is  not  repentance,  and  that  they  do  not  necessarily  accom- 
pany each  other.  But  this  would  be  unavailing  in  the 
present  instance.  It  is  readily  granted  that  "  the  sorrow 
of  the  world  may  have  no  connection  with  repentance,  but 
whoever  thought  of  a  wholly  impenitent  sinner  influenced 


NEW  DIVINITV RT:GENF.nATION,  155 

by  godly  sorrow  for  liis  sins — a  sorrow  working  repent- 
ance unto  salvation.  If  godly  sorrow  is  not  repentance,  it 
certainly  implies  repentance.  But  the  truth  in  the  case  is 
this,  godly  sorrow  is  repentance  itself,  prompting  to  ap- 
propriate acts  by  which  repentance  is  increased  to  that 
degree  which  connects  it  with  salvation.  The  apostle 
informs  us  in  what  way  "  godly  sorrow"  conduced  to  this 
result  in  the  Corinthians :  "  For  behold,  this  self-same 
thing,  that  ye  sorrowed  after  a  godly  sort,  what  carefulness 
it  wrought  in  you  ;  yea,  Avhat  clearing  of  yourselves  ;  yea, 
what  indignation ;  yea,  what  fear ;  yea,  Avhat  vehement 
desire  ;  yea,  what  zeal ;  yea,  what  revenge  ;  in  all  these 
things  ye  have  approved  yourselves  to  be  clear  in  this 
matter."  Can  the  sorrow  which  produces  these  effects, 
so  highly  commended  by  the  apostle,  be  ascribed  to  an 
entirely  and  obstinately  impenitent  man  ? 

We  are  also  sustained  by  the  following  text,  Jer.  xxxi, 
18,  19:  "I  have  surely  heard  Ephraim  bemoaning  him- 
self thus  :  Thou  hast  chastised  me,  and  I  was  chastised, 
as  a  bullock  unaccustomed  to  the  yoke  :  turn  thou  me,  and 
I  shall  be  turned,  for  thou  art  the  Lord  my  God.  Surely 
after  that  I  was  turned,  /  repented ;  and  after  that  I  was 
instructed,  I  smote  upon  my  thigh.  I  was  ashamed,  yea, 
even  confounded,  because  I  did  bear  the  reproach  of  my 
youth."  Ephraim  is  here  represented  as  in  deep  distress, 
bemoaning  and  reproaching  himself  for  his  past  perverse- 
ness.  He  prays  thus,  "  Turn  thou  me ;"  and  connects 
with  his  prayer  this  declaration  of  his  faith,  "  and  I  shall 
be  turned,  for  thou  art  the  Lord  my  God."  He  then  adds, 
"  Surely  after  that  I  was  turned,  I  repented."  Meaning, 
evidently,  after  my  prayer  was  answered  by  the  vouch- 
safement  of  the  desired  and  gracious  influences,  I  re- 
pented. 

Now,  if  there  are  not  degrees  of  repentance,  we.  have 
this  strange  spiritual  phenomenon;  Ephraim,  while  ea- 


156  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATiON. 

tirely  impenitent,  becomes  profoundly  sorrowful  on  ac- 
count of  Ills  sins  and  depravity,  makes  the  most  humilia- 
ting confession  of  them,  prays  to  God  that  he  may  be 
turned,  and  grounds  his  expectation  of  relief  on  the  cove- 
nant of  mercy.  In  answer  to  this  prayer,  God  turns  him. 
After  all  this  has  taken  place,  he  repents  for  the  first  time, 
and  begins,  for  the  first  time,  to  act  under  the  influence 
of  penitential  feelings.  Who  can  believe  such  an  ab- 
surdity ?  He  that  can,  is  not  to  be  convinced  by  reason  or 
Scripture.  The  obvious  explanation  of  this  passage  is, 
Ephraim  becomes  penitent,  and  expresses  his  penitence 
by  his  moanings,  his  confessions,  his  self-upbraidings,  and 
his  prayer.  By  these  acts,  and  especially  by  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  answer  to  his  prayer,  his  peni- 
tence is  increased;  it  assumes  a  more  thorough,  confirmed, 
and  decided  character,  and  gives  rise  to  those  strong  ex- 
'pressions  of  feeling  which  are  thus  described,  "  Surely 
after  that  I  was  turned  I  repented" — my  penitence  became 
deep  and  agonizing — "  I  smote  upon  my  thigh.  I  was 
ashamed  and  confounded." 

That  there  are  degrees  of  faith,  is  sufliciently  proved 
by  the  reproof  which  our  Lord  addressed  to  his  disciples : 
"  O  ye  of  little  faith,"  and  by  their  prayer,  "  Lord,  increase 
our  faith."  Both  the  reproof  and  the  petition  would  seem 
to  be  utterly  irrelevant,  on  the  supposition  that  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  faith  imperfect  "  and  progressive  to  com- 
pletion." 

The  inference  from  all  this  is  plain  and  conclusive.  If 
there  are  degrees  of  repentance  and  faith,  a  man  may  per- 
form acts  which  are  not  wholly  impenitent  and  unbeliev- 
ing, notwithstanding  they  precede  those  acts  and  degrees 
of  repentance  ami  faith  which  are  immediately  connected 
with  pardon  and  regeneration. 

The  objector,  if  he  determine  to  abide  by  this  objec- 
tion, must  also  encounter  this  diflicuUy.     If  no  act  can  be 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  157 

acceptable  to  God  that  does  not  proceed  from  repentance 
and  faith,  and  if  the  first  act  of  repentance  or  faith  is  suf- 
ficient to  constitute  a  man  a  Christian,  it  follows,  unan- 
swerably, that  no  man  can  do  any  thing  toward  becoming 
a  Christian  until  he  is  a  Christian.  When  he  is  required 
to  do  any  thing  toward  becoming  a  Christian,  he  is  re- 
quired to  be  a  Christian  before  he  does  that  which  is  ne- 
cessary to  make  him  one. 

There  is  another  form  of  the  same  objection  which  it 
may  be  proper  to  notice.  It  is  contended  that  all  acts 
which  precede  regeneration  are  unholy,  and  therefore  can- 
not be  supposed  to  promote  regeneration,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, must  be  imacceptable  and  ofl'ensive  to  God. 

Perhaps  the  objection  derives  its  plausibility,  chiefly, 
from  the  error  of  predicating  unholiness  of  the  actions,  in- 
stead of  the  actor.  It  seems  clear  and  unanswerable,  that 
a  \'icious  act  can  do  nothing  toward  securing  the  favour 
of  God.  And  yet,  those  acts  which  must  be  performed  in 
order  to  become  holy,  presuppose  that  he  on  whom  they 
are  enjoined  is  yet  unholy. 

But  can  an  unholy  man  do  any  thing  acceptable  to  God? 
Certainly  he  can.  Does  not  God  address  his  commands 
to  the  unholy  ?  Does  he  not  enjoin  on  them  the  perform- 
ance of  certain  actions  1  But  why  command  the  unholy 
man  to  act  in  any  way,  if  all  his  actions,  while  unholy, 
must  necessarily  be  rebellious  ?  Would  it  not  be  more, 
much  more  consistent  with  reason,  to  enjoin  a  total  sus- 
pension of  action  until  he  has  become  holy  ?  And  even 
then  there  would  be  the  same  difficulty,  because  the  volun- 
tary suspension  of  all  action,  supposing  it  possible,  would 
be  the  act  of  an  unholy  man.  The  difficulty  lies  as  much 
in  the  way  of  the  performance  of  one  act,  as  a  succession 
of  acts. 

If  no  act  performed  by  an  unholy  man  can  be  accepta- 
ble to  God,  It  will  follow,  either  that  Ggd  does  not  require 


158  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

of  the  unholy  man  any  effort  to  become  holy,  or  that  he 
requires  him  to  be  holy  before  he  makes  the  effort  to  be- 
come so,  which  is  absurd  ;  or  that  he  requires  him  to  per- 
form acts,  in  order  to  become  holy,  which  are  unacceptable 
to  him ;  or,  in  other  words,  he  requires  that  which  he  at 
the  same  time  condemns :  he  requires  a  man  to  sin  in  or- 
der to  obtain  forgiveness  and  regeneration. 

But  if,  as  New  Divinity  affirms,  one  single  act  of  the 
mind  changes  a  man  from  an  impenitent  rebel  to  a  Chris- 
tian ;  if  the  first  act  of  the  mind  which  conforms  to  the 
law  of  God  constitutes  or  presupposes  regeneration  ;  if  it 
be  no  matter,  as  we  are  assured  by  the  advocates  of  this 
system,  what  the  particular  exercise  may  be,  we  must  pre- 
pare ourselves  to  admit  the  following  consequences  : — 

First :  That  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  sinner  to  confess 
his  sins,  in  order  to  salvation.  Because  the  confession 
'  of  sin  plainly  implies  the  previous  acts  of  repentance  for 
sin  and  the  purpose  to  forsake  it.  Who  would  not  be 
shocked  at  the  thought  of  an  entirely  impenitent  man  ad- 
dressing to  the  great  and  incensed  Jehovah  an  enumera- 
tion of  his  crimes — confession  we  could  not  call  it — and 
that  too,  without  any  design  of  forsaking  them  ?  Such  a 
course  would  require  uncommon  hardihood  in  iniquity. 
But  if  there  be  any  degree  of  repentance — if  the  purpose 
to  forsake  sin  has  been  formed- — the  confession  is  unne- 
cessary.    The  man  is  a  Christian  without  it. 

Again :  We  must  suppose,  either  that  the  purpose  to 
forsake  sin  and  serve  God  is  formed  while  a  man  is  wholly 
impenitent,  and  is  therefore  one  of  his  impenitent  acts,  or 
that  such  a  purpose  is  preceded  by  repentance.  But  if  it 
be  preceded  by  repentance,  it  is,  according  to  this  theory, 
unnecessary.     The  man  is  a  Christian  without  it. 

We  are  led  to  this  consequence  by  another  process. 
No  man  can  purpose  to  forsake  his  sins,  and  devote  him- 
self to  the  service  of  God,  without  previously  exercising 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  159 

faith.  He  must  believe  in  the  existence  of  God,  and  that 
he  has  established  and  maintains  a  moral  government,  and 
that  the  divine  government  makes  this  purpose  his  duty. 
But  the  doctrine  of  Nevi^  Divinity  is,  that  the  very  first  act 
of  faith  makes  a  man  a  Christian.  This  purpose  is,  there- 
fore, not  necessary  to  his  becoming  one.  He  is  a  Chris- 
tian without  it. 

According  to  this  doctrine,  it  is  not  necessary  to  perform 
those  exercises  which  are  denominated  coming  unto  God, 
looking  unto  God,  or  seeking  God,  in  order  to  be  saved. 
All  these  acts  presuppose  faith  in  God.  The  apostle  says, 
"  He  that  cometh  unto  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
that  he  is  the  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him." 
But  the  first  act  of  faith  makes  or  proves  a  man  a  Chris- 
tian. He  is,  therefore,  a  Christian  before  he  comes  unto 
God,  looks  unto  him,  or  seeks  hi^n. 

It  would  not  relieve  the  advocates  of  New  Divinity  from 
this  embarrassment,  to  say,  that  a  belief  in  the  existence 
and  government  of  God  is  not  faith,  or  that  it  is  not  the 
faith  which  the  law  of  God  requires.  It  is.  The  apostle 
lays  down  the  proposition,  that  "  without  faith  it  is  im- 
possible to  please  God,"  and  illustrates  it  by  adding,  "  For 
he  that  cometh  unto  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that 
he  is  the  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him." 

Even  submission  is  rendered  unnecessary  to  regenera- 
tion by  this  new  gospel,  inasmuch  as  submission  to  God 
implies  faith  in  him. 

But  we  have  not  yet  fathomed  this  abyss  of  absurdity. 
Faith  implies  hearing,  attention,  and  serious  reflection. 
"  How  shall  they  believe  on  him  of  whom  thoy  have  not 
heard,"  says  the  apostle.  But  hearing  simply  is  not  sufii- 
cient.  There  are  those  that  hear,  but  so  carelessly,  as  not 
to  understand.  There  must  be  attention.  These  acts,  Ave 
have  seen,  are  required  by  the  law  of  God.  Now,  if  we 
suppose  any  of  these  exercises  to  be  preceded  by  au  act 


100  NEW  DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 

of  faith,  they  are,  of  course,  superseded  by  it,  and  are 
thereby  rendered  unnecessary.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
they  are  supposed  to  precede  faith,  the  faith  which  is  pre- 
ceded by  them  is  thereby  rendered  unnecessary^  to  sal- 
vation. 

Let  us  now  try  the  effect  of  this  theory  on  the  examples 
of  conversion  adduced  in  the  last  chapter. 

It  renders  the  prayer  of  the  publican  wholly  inappro- 
priate. He  came  to  the  temple  to  pray,  and  offered  his 
petition,  under  the  influence  of  a  purpose  to  forsake  his 
sins  and  obey  God,  or,  without  having  formed  any  such 
purpose.  If  he  came  with  the  purpose  of  his  mind  un- 
changed with  respect  to  his  course  of  life,  how  shall  we 
characterize  his  conduct?  Would  not  New  Divinity,  at 
once,  pronounce  it  hypocritical  and  rebellious  ?  But  if,  on 
the  contrary,  he  came  resolved  to  devote  himself  to  the 
service  of  God,  his  prayer  for  mercy  was  wholly  super- 
fluous. This  mercy  had  already  been  extended  to  him. 
He  was  regenerated,  and  of  course  justilied,  before  he 
prayed. 

Again  :  We  must  suppose,  that  when  he  sought  the  tem- 
ple of  God,  and  addressed  to  him  his  prayer,  he  was,  to 
some  extent,  penitent  and  believing,  or  wholly  impenitent 
and  unbelieving.  If  the  former,  he  had  the  mercy  for 
which  he  prayed,  and  might  have  spared  himself  the  anx- 
iety which  he  felt.  If  the  latter,  his  whole  conduct  was 
hypocritical  and  rebellious. 

It  convicts  the  answer  of  the  apostles,  to  the  inquiry  of 
the  jailer,  of  irrelevancy.  We  may  affirm  of  him  what  we 
affirmed  of  the  publican.  He  inquired  what  he  should  do 
to  be  saved,  under  the  influence  of  a  determination  to  do 
whatever  God  might  require  of  him,  or  without  such  a 
determination.  On  either  supposition  the  answer  was 
irrelevant.  If  he  had  formed  the  purpose  of  obedience, 
he  was   already  saved,  and  the   answer  of  the   apostle 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  161 

should  liave  been  to  that  effect.  If  otherwise,  the  proper 
answer  would  have  been  a  rebuke  for  his  insincerity  and 
wickedness,  and  a  solemn  warning.  On  the  Arminian 
theory,  the  answer  of  the  apostle  is  easily  justified.  The 
jailer  had  already  decided  the  great  question — he  was  al- 
ready penitent  and  believing  in  some  degree.  But  one 
single  act  of  mind  is  not  sufficient  to  change  a  sinner  to  a 
saint.  The  first  exercises  of  penitence  and  faith  are  not 
enough.  It  still  remained  for  him  to  believe — to  trust  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Compare  this  theory  with  St.  Paul's  conversion.  On 
the  supposition,  that,  when  he  inquired,  "  Lord,  what  wilt 
thou  have  me  to  do,"  his  mind  was  made  up  to  do  the  will 
of  Christ,  which  was  unqviestionably  the  case,  we  must 
conclude  that  the  great  spiritual  change  had  already  taken 
place.  He  was  already  a  Christian,  and  the  direction 
which  Ananias  gave  him,  to  wash  away  his  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord,  came  too  late.  He  had  already 
washed  away  his  sins.  The  bloody  persecutor  was  made 
a  child  of  God,  before  he  left  the  scene  of  his  mysterious 
arrest,  by  that  one  act,  which  is  presupposed  by  the  ques- 
tion, "  Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do  ?" 

The  conduct  of  the  psalmist,  as  a  penitent,  is  utterly 
unaccountable,  if  this  doctrine  of  New  Divinity  be  true. 
His  prayer  for  pardon  and  renovation  is  appropriate,  only 
on  the  supposition  that  he  was  unpardoned  and  unrenewed. 
But  if  this  were  his  condition,  it  was  because  he  had  not 
yet  purposed  to  forsake  his  sins.  What  propriety,  then, 
could  there  be  in  his  apparently  solemn  confession  of  sin, 
his  professed  sorrow  on  account  of  it,  and  his  repeated 
prayers  for  forgiveness  ?  Would  not  this  representation 
of  the  case  place  him  in  the  predicament  of  a  downright 
hypocrite  1  If,  on  the  contrary,  he  had  decided  this  im- 
portant point,  he  was  already  in  possession  of  that,  the 
supposed  absence  of  which  he  so  feelingly  deplores,  and 


162  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

for  which  he  so  earnestly  and  importunately  prays.  Either 
New  Divinity  is  wrong,  or  this  whole  psalm  is  calculated 
to  make  false  impressions. 

The  dangerous  practical  tendency  of  a  doctrine  which 
leads  to  such  theoretical  consequences,  must  be  alarmingly 
apparent. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  in  reply  to  this  suggestion,  that 
when  the  sinner  "  yields  one  point  to  God's  authority,  he 
is  ready  to  yield  all.  When  he  changes  his  mind  and 
obeys  in  one  thing,  because  it  is  God's  will,  he  will  obey 
in  other  things,  so  far  as  he  sees  it  to  be  God's  will." 
This,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  asserted  by  Mr.  J'inney. 
Were  this  doctrine  true,  the  interests  of  morality  and  piety 
would  be  as  effectually  secured  by  this  theory  as  by  any 
other.  But  it  is  not  true  ;  and  we  are  astonished  that 
.  any  man  should  think  of  asserting  it.  We  grant  that  the 
sinner  who  yields  one  point  may  go  on  and  yield  all ;  but 
that  he  will  as  a  matter  of  course,  we  deny.  Mr.  Finney 
preaches  perfect  obedience,  in  this  instance,  to  some  pur- 
pose. The  sinner  who  submits  to  God  in  one  single  in- 
stance not  only  may,  but  will,  therefore,  submit  to  him  in 
every  instance ! 

This  strange  doctrine  is  plainly  contradicted  by  these 
words  of  the  apostle  to  the  Galatians  :  "  Ye  did  run  well  ; 
who  did  hinder  you,  that  ye  should  not  obey  the  truth  ?" 
chap.  V,  7.  We  could  multiply  such  citations  to  a  great 
extent,  but  it  is  unnecessary.  These  words  plainly  imply 
that  one  point,  at  least,  had  been  yielded  to  God's  au- 
thority ;  but  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  addressed, 
had  paused  in  their  career  of  obedience. 

Mr.  Finney  must  surrender  this  doctrine,  or,  to  be  con- 
sistent, he  must  conclude  that  David  had  never  yielded  one 
point  to  God's  authority  when  he  committed  the  transgres- 
sion with  Uriah's  wife  ; — that  Peter  had  never  yielded  one 
point  to  God's  authority  when  he  denied  his  Lord  with 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  163 

cursing  and  swearing.  And  no  reason  can  be  assigned, 
why  this  turning  aside  from  the  path  of  obedience  may  not 
take  place  as  easily  in  the  earlier  stages  of  submission  to 
divine  authority,  as  at  a  later  period. 

The  Scriptures  present  numerous  examples  in  direct 
contradiction  to  Mr.  Finney's  assertion.  While  many  of 
the  Jews  refused  to  believe  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus, 
Simon  the  sorcerer  believed,  and  submitted  to  Christian 
baptism.  He  yielded  that  point  to  God's  authority.  And 
yet,  so  far  was  he  from  being  converted,  and  ready  to  yield 
every  other  point,  that  he  brought  on  himself  that  severe 
rebuke  from  the  apostle,  "  Thy  money  perish  with  thee," 
&c.  While  many  refuse  to  hear  the  word  of  God,  others 
readily  yield  that  point.  They  become  hearers  of  the  word. 
This  is  their  character.  But  they  may  go  no  further. 
They  may  be  like  unto  a  man  beholding  his  natural  face 
in  a  glass,  and  going  away  and  straightway  forgetting  what 
manner  of  man  he  was.  We  are  admonished  to  be  not 
only  hearers,  but  doers  of  the  word :  "  For  not  the  hear- 
ers of  the  law  are  just  before  God,  but  the  doers  of  the 
law  shall  be  justified."  The  parable  of  the  sower  was 
specially  designed  to  illustrate  this  point :  "  Hear,  there- 
fore, the  parable  of  the  sower.  When  any  one  heareth 
the  word  of  the  kingdom,  and  understandeth  it  not,  then 
cometh  the  wicked  one,  and  catcheth  away  that  which 
was  sown  in  his  heart.  This  is  he  which  receiveth  seed 
by  the  way-side.  But  he  that  receiveth  the  word  into 
stony  places,  the  same  is  he  that  heareth  the  word,  and 
anon  with  joy  receiveth  it.  Yet  hath  he  not  root  in  him- 
self, but  dureth  for  awhile  ;  for  when  tribulation  or 'perse- 
cution ariseth,  because  of  the  word,  he  is  offended."  In 
this  case,  the  word  is  not  only  heard,  but  received  with 
joy ;  but  this  does  not  necessarily  imply  a  readiness  to 
yield  every  point. 

The  case  of  the  young  man  who  came  to  our  Lord  to 


164  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

inquire  what  he  should  do  to  inherit  eternal  life,  is  in 
point.  It  is  thus  related  by  St.  Mark,  chap,  x :  "  And 
when  he  was  gone  forth  into  the  way,  there  came  one  run- 
ning, and  kneeled  to  him,  and  asked  him.  Good  Master, 
what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life  ?  And  Je- 
sus said  unto  him.  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ?  There  is 
none  good  but  one,  that  is,  God.  Thou  knowest  the  com- 
mandments :  Do  not  commit  adultery ;  Do  not  kill ;  Do 
not  steal ;  Do  not  bear  false  witness  ;  Defraud  not ;  Honor 
thy  father  and  thy  mother.  And  he  answered  and  said 
unto  him,  Master,  all  these  things  have  I  observed  from 
my  youth.  Then  Jesus,  beholding  him,  loved  him;  and 
said  unto  him,  One  thing  thou  lackest ;  go  thy  way,  sell 
whatsoever  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven ;  and  come  and  take  up  the  cross 
and  follow  me.  And  he  was  sad  at  that  saying,  and  went 
away  grieved,  for  he  had  great  possessions." 

Will  any  one  contend  that  tliis  man  had  yielded  no  one 
point  to  divine  authority, — ^that  he  was  a  rebel  "  total  and 
unqualified," — that  when  he  approached  our  Lord,  run- 
ning and  kneeling  down,  he  was  wholly  impenitent  and 
unbelieving  ?  We  presume  not.  Had  this  been  the  case, 
our  Lord  would  not  have  answered  Mm  as  he  did ;  nor 
would  he  have  entertained  that  special  regard  for  him 
which  is  indicated.  Instead  of  telling  him  that  he  lacked 
one  thing,  and  stating  that  one  thing  to  be  a  readiness  to 
relinquish  his  possessions,  he  would  have  rebuked  him  as 
John  rebuked  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  who  came  to  his 
baptism,  and  as  he  himself  rebuked  them  on  a  certain 
occasion.  Besides,  the  declaration  "  One  thing  thou  lack- 
est," cannot  be  construed  to  mean  that  he  lacked  every 
thing  that  was  necessary.  It  evidently  concedes,  that 
while  there  was  a  deficiency,  he  had  done  part  of  what 
was  required.  It  is  remarkable  that  Matthew  represents 
the  Saviour  as  saying  to  him, — "  If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go 


NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION.  165 

and  sell  that  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven  :  and  come  and  follow  me."  This 
accidental  variation  in  the  phraseology  cannot  be  supposed 
to  include  a  variation  in  the  sense.  What,  then,  does  the 
language  of  Matthew  import  1  Plainly  this  :  If  thou  wilt 
do  all  that  is  required  of  thee — if  thou  wilt  fulfil  perfectly 
the  terms  of  thy  salvation,  thou  must  go  one  step  further. 

This  narrative  is  decidedly  and  pointedly  at  vari- 
ance with  the  principles  of  New  Divinity,  which  require 
us  to  suppose,  either,  that  this  young  man  was  entirely 
and  unqualifiedly  impenitent  and  rebellious  when  he  came 
to  Christ,  and  must,  therefore,  have  been  playing  the  hypo- 
crite, or  that  he  was  already  a  Christian ;  both  of  which 
suppositions  are  manifestly  false. 

It  may  be  supposed  that  the  one-single-act  theory  is 
supported  by  the  fact,  that  the  blessing  of  the  divine  favour 
is  frequently  connected,  by  promise,  with  several  of  those 
acts  separately,  which  we  have  specified  as  necessary 
thereto.  For  instance,  it  is  said,  "  Hear,  and  your  souls 
shall  live."  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved."  "  They 
that  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  "  If 
we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us 
our  sins,"  &c. 

But  this  fact  would  not  sustain  such  an  inference.  It 
is  not  hearing  simply,  or  believing  simply,  or  praying 
simply,  or  confessing  simply,  that  is  contemplated  by  these 
passages.  All  these  exercises  must  have  certain  qualifi- 
cations to  render  them  effectual ;  and  the  terms  are  fre- 
quently used  to  imply,  not  merely  the  simple  exercise, 
but  the  exercise  with  its  essential  qualifications.  Praying 
aright,  implies  several  other  exercises.  So  does  the 
strong  faith  which  is  requisite.  These  exercises  react 
on  each  other,  promoting  the  necessary  maturity  in  each 
and  all  of  them ;  so  that  he  that  prayeth,  or  believeth,  or 
confesseth,  or  repenteth  in  the  maimer  required,  will  be 


166  NEW  DIVINITY REGENERATION. 

saved.  But  then,  the  performance  of  any  one  of  these 
acts,  as  is  ultimately  required,  implies  the  performance  of 
a^  the  rest ;  so  that  he  who  does  not  hear,  and  repent, 
and  confess,  and  believe,  will  not  be  saved 


CHAPTER  XV. 

REGENERATION    CONTINUED. 

The  views  of  regeneration  which  have  been  shown  to 
belong  to  the  system  of  New  Divinity,  evidently  include 
the  doctrine,  that  tJie  smner  regenerates  himself.  Let  it  be 
granted  that  one  simple  act  of  the  sinner's  mind  consti- 
tutes the  great  change,  and  that  the  sinner  is  able  and  re- 
quired, to  perform  that  act,  and  the  inference  will  be  in- 
evitable that  every  converted  man  has  converted  himself. 
The  supposition  that  God  regenerates  the  sinner,  would 
involve  the  absurdity,  that  the  voluntary  act  of  the  sinner 
is  the  act  of  God.  This  doctrine,  also,  is,  in  many  in- 
stances, distinctly  and  boldly  promulgated.  Take  a  few 
examples.  Mr.  Finney,  in  his  sermon  on  "  Sinners  Bound 
to  Change  their  own  Hearts,"  says,  "  The  fact  is,  that  the 
actual  turning  or  change  is  the  sinner's  own  act.''^ — p.  20. 
Again :  "  This  subject  shows  also  that  if  the  sinner  ever 
has  a  new  heart,  he  must  obey  the  command,  and  make  it 
himself." — p.  24.  Again  :  "  Sinner,  instead  of  waiting  and 
praying  for  God  to  change  your  heart,  you  should  at  once 
summon  up  your  powers,  put  forth  the  effort,  and  change 
the  governing  purpose  of  your  mind." — p.  37. 

In  the  passage  quoted  from  the  work  of  Doctor  Skinner 
and  President  Beecher,  in  the  twelfth  chapter,  to  which 
the  reader  is  referred,  wc  are  told,  that  "  becoming 
religious,"  which  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  being  con- 
verted to  God,  bom  again,  or  regenerated,  is  a  voluntary 


NEW  DIVINITV — REGENERATION.  167 

act  of  the  sinner's  mind — that  he  is  required  to  perforin 
it — -that  the  performance  of  it  requires  no  length  of  time, 
no  protracted  effort — that  it  may  be  done  by  him  at  this 
time  and  in  this  place— and  he  is  to  be  warned  against 
leaving  the  place  until  he  has  performed  it.  What  is  this 
but  self-conversion  1 

Doctor  Lansing  asserts  this  doctrine  in  his  sermon  on 
"  The  Inability  of  Sinners  Voluntary."  He  remarks, 
"A  moral  change  is  necessary;  but  a  moral  change  is 
nothing  more  than  a  change  of  will,  purpose,  or  inclina- 
tion ;  and  it  is  this  change  that  God,  by  the  mouth  of  the 
prophet,  commands  the  sinner  to  operate  for  himself,  when 
he  says,  *  Make  you  a  new  heart,  and  a  new  spirit.' 
'  Cleanse  your  hearts,  ye  sinners,  and  purify  your  hearts, 
ye  double-minded.'" — Sermons,  p.  154. 

But  do  they  never  attribute  the  change  to  God  ?  Yes, 
frequently,  and  in  the  highest  style  of  Calvinism,  as  we 
shall  show  hereafter.  Indeed,  Ncav  Divinity  is  contradic- 
tion  itself  reduced  to  a  science.  They  also  ascribe  the 
change  to  the  preacher  and  to  the  word.  Mr.  Finney  under- 
takes to  explain  the  co-operation  of  these  several  agen- 
cies ;  but  the  production  of  the  change,  essentially,  is 
ascribed  to  the  sinner.  The  influence  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  like  that  of  the  minister  and  the  word,  is  restricted 
to  mere  persuasion  or  inducement.  "  The  fact  is,"  says 
Mr.  F.,  "  that  the  actual  turning,  or  change,  is  the  sinner's 
own  act.  The  agent  who  induces  him,  is  the  Spirit  of 
God.  A  secondary  agent  is  the  preacher,  or  individual 
that  presents  the  truth.  The  truth  is  the  instrument  or 
motive  which  the  Spirit  uses  to  induce  the  sinner  to 
turn."  In  pursuing  his  illustration,  he  adds,  "  Now,  in 
speaking  of  this  change,  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  say  that 
the  Spirit  turned  him,  just  as  you  would  say  of  a  man, 
who  had  persuaded  another  to  change  his  mind  on  the 
subject  of  politics,  that  he  had  converted  him,  and  brought 


168  NEW  DIVINITY — REGENERATION. 

him  over.  It  is  also  proper  to  say  that  the  truth  convert- 
ed him ;  as  in  a  case  where  the  political  sentiments  of  a 
man  were  changed  by  a  certain  argument,  we  should  say 
that  argument  brought  him  over.  So  also,  with  perfect 
propriety,  may  we  ascribe  the  change  to  the  living  preach- 
er, or  to  him  who  had  presented  the  motives ;  just  as  we 
should  say  of  a  lawyer  who  had  prevailed  in  his  argument 
with  a  jury,  he  has  got  his  case,  he  has  converted  the 
jury.  It  is  also  with  the  same  propriety  ascribed  to  the 
individual  himself,  whose  heart  is  changed;  we  should 
say  that  he  had  changed  his  mind,  he  has  come  over,  he 
has  repented.  Now,  it  is  strictly  true,  and  true  in  the 
most  absolute  and  highest  sense,  the  act  is  his  own  act, 
the  turning  is  his  own  turning,  while  God,  by  the  truth, 
has  induced  him  to  turn ;  still  it  is  strictly  true  that  he  has 
turned,  and  has  done  it  himself.  Thus  you  see  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  the  work  of  God,  and  also  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  the  sinner's  own  work.  The  Spirit  of  God, 
by  the  truth,  influences  the  sinner  to  change,  and  in  this 
sense  is  the  efRcient  cause  of  the  change.  But  the  sinner 
actually  changes,  and  is  therefore  himself,  in  the  most  pro- 
per sense,  the  author  of  the  change." — p.  22. 

The  reader,  with  these  explanations  at  hand,  need  have 
no  difficulty  in  understanding  what  they  mean,  when  they 
assert,  with  all  the  semblance  of  orthodoxy,  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  the  "  efficient  cause"  of  regeneration.  They 
mean  nothing  more  than  that  the  Holy  Spirit  converts  the 
sinner,  just  as  one  man  converts  another  when  he  per- 
suades him  to  change  his  pohtics ;  or  as  a  lawyer  converts 
the  jury  when  he  gains  his  cause ;  while  the  sinner  is  in 
the  "  most  absolute  and  liighest  sense,"  "  in  the  most  pro- 
per sense,"  the  author  of  the  change. 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  avoid  this  doctrine,  to 
deny  that  the  sinner  has  any  thing  to  do  in  securing  a 
change  of  heart.  He  is  required  to  perform  certain  condi- 


NEW  DIVINITY jvI^oi^inERATION.  169 

tional  and  preparatory  acts,  in  view  of  which,  God  justi- 
fies and  regenerates  him.  When  he  is  called  upon  to 
make  himself  a  new  heart,  the  import  of  the  obligation  is, 
that  he  shall  perform  the  prescribed  condition  ;  v/hile  the 
work  of  regeneration — of  renewing  the  heart — is  immedi- 
ately and  exclusively  the  work  of  God,  as  the  Evangelist 
John  affirms  ; — "  But  to  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them 
gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them 
that  believe  on  his  name :  which  were  born  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man ,  but  of  God." 
The  gross  inconsistency  in  which  Mr.  F.  involves  him- 
self, in  exhibiting  the  doctrine  of  self-conversion,  has 
been  noticed  in  the  discussion  of  another  topic.  To  make 
out  its  practicability,  he  resolves  the  heart  into  a  volunta- 
ry act  or  state  of  the  mind.  But  this  is  a  somewhat  ad- 
venturous movement,  both  in  divinity  and  philosophy.  The 
Scriptures,  which  are  the  standard  of  Christian  theology, 
and  are  unquestionably  based  on  the  true  philosophy  of 
mind,  speak  of  the  heart  as  belonging  to  the  constitution 
of  our  nature,  and  as  a  source  of  our  voluntary  actions. 
To  seem,  therefore,  to  secure  the  suffrages  of  Scripture 
and  reason,  he  defines  the  heart  to  be  "  that  deep-seated. 
but  voluntary  preference  of  the  mind,  which  lies  back  of  all 
its  other  voluntary  affections  and  emotions,  and  from 
which  they  take  their  character."  Now  the  difiiculty  of 
self-conversion,  supposing  this  very  accommodating  defi- 
nition of  the  term  heart  to  be  correct,  which  however  is 
denied,  is  this  :  this  "voluntary  preference  of  the  mind" 
which  constitutes  the  heart,  is  so  "deep-seated"  that  it 
"Ues  back  of  all  its  other"  voluntary  actions,  and  gives 
them  "  their  character."  And  yet,  out  of  this  preference, 
another  volition  is  supposed  to  arise,  which  entirely 
changes  the  character  of  the  preference  from  which 
it  springs,  and  from  which  it  first  takes  its  character. 
This  is  the  Ethiopian  changing  his  skin  to  some  purpose  ! 

8 


170  NEW   DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

MORAL      SUASION. 

Another  distinctive  feature  of  the  New  School  theory 
is  found  in  the  doctrine,  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  rege- 
neration of  a  sinner,  employs  no  other  injluence  than  that  of 
persuasion. 

This  view  of  the  mode  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  operations 
naturally  results  from  the  doctrines  of  ability  and  regene- 
ration, which  we  have  endeavoured  to  refute.  If  one 
single  act  of  the  sinner's  mind  constitutes  regeneration, 
and  he  has  a  natural  ability  to  perform  that  act  at  any 
time,  it  is  plain  that  all  which  is  necessary  to  be  done  for 
him,  in  order  to  make  him  a  Christian,  is  to  persuade  him 
to  perform  the  act  in  question.  And  as  no  other  influence 
is  necessary,  the  Holy  Spirit  cannot  be  supposed  to  exert 
any  other. 

This  doctrine  is  frequently  inculcated.  We  will  present 
a  few  examples. 

The  author  of  "  Views  in  Theology"  says,  "  As  far  then 
as  human  experience  extends,  there  is  no  other  medium 
known  of  influencing  the  voluntary  actions  of  mankind 
than  that  of  moral  suasion." — Part  iii,  p.  71. 

Again  :  ^^  All  the  means  employed  by  the  moral  govern- 
ment of  God  to  influence  the  voluntary  actions  of  men,  are 
the  means  of  moral  suasion.  Their  whole  agency  is  ex- 
pended in  counteracting  temptations  by  presenting  induce- 
ments to  holiness.  So  far  therefore  as  that  goes,  it  appears 
that  no  other  medium  is  employed  by  the  Most  High  to 
influence  the  conduct  of  men. — p.  72. 

Again  :  "  This  follows  from  the  fact  that,  as  has  been 
shown,  the  influence  of  motives  is  the  sole  instrujnent  of 
determining  the  manner  in  which  men  act  in  regard  to 
their  obligations." — p.  77. 

Again :  "  We  are  thus  clearly  taught  in  the  volume  of 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION.  171 

inspiration,  that  the  Spirit  does  exert  an  agency  on  the 
mind,  that  is  employed  in  the  communication  to  it  of  truth, 
and  through  that  medium  convicts,  renews,  and  sanctifies 
it,  and  thus  produces  all  the  various  classes  of  effects  that 
are  ever  in  the  Scriptures  attributed  to  his  agency ;  and 
are  taught  it  in  statements  and  representations — not  that 
are  restricted  by  any  reference  to  particular  individuals, 
or  circumscribed  by  applications  to  subordinate  effects, — 
but  that  are  wholly  exempt  from  such  limitations,  and  that 
accordingly  by  all  just  laws  of  construction,  must  be  re- 
ceived as  descriptive  of  the  only  infiuence  he  employs  in 
producing  these  effects." — No.  11,  Vol.  iii,  p.  285. 

Mr.  Finney  says,  in  his  sermon  on  "  Sinners  Bound  to 
Change  their  own  Hearts,"  "You  see  from  this  subject  the 
nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency.  That  he  does  not  act  by 
direct  physical  contact  upon  the  mind,  but  that  he  uses 
his  truth  as  his  sword  to  pierce  the  sinner,  and  that  the 
motives  presented  in  the  gospel  are  the  instruments  he 
uses  to  change  the  sinner's  heart.  Some  have  doubted  this, 
and  supposed  that  it  is  equivalent  to  denying  the  Spirit's 
agency  altogether  to  maintain  that  he  converts  sinners 
by  motives.  Others  have  denied  the  possibility  of  chang- 
ing the  heart  by  motives.  But  did  not  the  serpent  change 
Adam's  heart  by  motives  ;  and  cannot  the  Spirit  of  God, 
with  infinitely  higher  motives,  exert  as  great  a  power  over 
mind  as  he  can  1  Can  the  old  serpent  change  a  heart  from 
a  perfectly  holy  to  a  perfectly  sinful  one,  by  the  power  of 
motives,  and  cannot  the  infinitely  wise  God  do  as  much 
as  Satan  did  V 

In  this  very  extraordinary  passage  it  is  clearly  incul- 
cated, that  the  change  which  takes  place  in  regeneration 
is  strictly  analogous  to  that  which  takes  place  in  apostacy, 
and  that  the  same  mode  of  influence,  namely,  persuasion 
by  the  presentation  of  motives,  is  as  competent  to  regene- 
rate as  it  is  to  corrupt. 


173  NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION. 

Mr.  DufEeld  says,  "  In  what  his  efficacy  consists,  is  a 
question  of  deep  interest,  and  in  attempting  to  meet  it,  it 
becomes  necessary  to  inquire  whether  the  Spirit's  agency 
is  in  the  suasive  influence  of  truth,  or  by  some  act  of 
physical  power  irrespective  of  the  appropriate  influence 
of  truth." — p.  481.  In  another  place  he  remarks,  "If 
you  hope  for  a  mighty  creative  power  to  be  exerted  upon 
you  irrespective  of  your  voluntary  exercise,  your  hopes 
are  baseless  and  visionary.  The  Spirit's  efiicacious 
agency  is  through  the  suasive  injluence  of  truth,  and  if 
you  resist  it,  you  resist  the  only  means  that  you  or  any 
one  else  can  hope  to  be  exerted  for  you,  to  bring  you  to 
repentance." — p.  515. 

But  do  they  not  explicitly  and  formally  disavow  the  doc- 
trine, that  the  Holy  Spirit  regenerates  by  "  a  persuasive 
exhibition  of  the  truth  analogous  to  the  influence  which 
one  man  exerts  over  the  mind  of  another  ?"  Do  they  not 
declare  it  to  be  their  belief  that  regeneration  is  "  produced 
by  the  special  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?"  Do  they 
not  assert  that  the  Spirit's  influences  are  supernatural,  in 
reply  to  the  charge  of  holding  that  those  influences  are 
restricted  to  moral  suasion  1  They  do.  But  they  do  not, 
nevertheless,  deny  the  doctrine  with  which  they  are 
charged.  The  word  "  special"  is  a  technicality  well  un- 
derstood among  them.  They  explain  it  so  as  to  make  it 
agree  perfectly  with  the  "  moral-suasion"  theory. 

The  author  of"  Views  in  Theology"  tells  us  that  "  the 
distinction  of  the  influences  of  the  Divine  Spirit  into  the 
classes  of  common  and  special ;  restraining,  enlightening, 
regenerating,  sanctifying,  and  comforting,  is  to  be  made 
solely  on  the  ground  that  they  occasion  suck  diversified 
effects ;  not  on  the  ground  that  they  differ  in  their  nature. 
For  as  his  influences  are  all  employed  in  presenting  7no- 
tives  to  the  eye,  they  are  of  course  always  in  kind  the 
same.     The  difference  in  the  efTects  of  his  agency,  arises 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION.  173 

from  the  difference  in  the  motives  through  which  he  occa- 
sions those  effects." — Part  iii,  p.  89. 

Mr.  Duffield  contends  stoutly  for  a  "special"  influence, 
but  his  special  influence  does  not  differ  in  kind  from  that 
which  one  man  exerts  upon  another.  He  says,  imme- 
diately after  giving  an  illustration  of  its  specialty,  "  Shall 
we  suppose  that  God  cannot  do  with  sinners,  in  reference 
to  himself,  what  one  man  has  done  with  another  ? — That  a 
physical  efficiency  is  necessary  to  make  the  sinner  willing 
to  confide  in  Him,  and  repent  of  his  rebellion !  To  sup- 
pose so  is,  in  fact,  to  attribute  a  moral  influence  to  man 
more  potent  than  that  which,  in  such  a  case,  it  would  be 
requisite  God  should  exert.  It  would  be  in  effect  to  say 
that  man  can  subdue  his  foe,  and  by  an  appropriate  moral 
influence  convert  him  into  a  friend ;  but  that  God  cannot 
convert  his  enemy,  and  bring  him  to  believe,  except  he 
puts  forth  his  physical  power,  and  literally  create  him  over 
again." — p.  492. 

So  with  the  term  "  supernatural."  It  has  its  explana- 
tion or  explanations.  But  they  all  accord  with  the  doc- 
trine of  regeneration  by  moral  suasion. 

The  writer  of  "  Views  in  Theology"  says,  "  Restraint, 
conviction,  sanctification,  and  comfort,  whe7i  they  result 
immediately  from  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  super- 
natural effects,  in  the  same  sense  that  regeneration  is. 
The  term  is  to  be  employed  simply  to  express  the  fact, 
that  the  effect  to  which  it  relates  is  occasioned  by  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  peculiarly  applicable  to  rege- 
neration only  on  the  ground  that  it  never  takes  place  ex- 
cept by  the  Spirit's  influence.  The  other  effects  undoubt- 
edly do." — Part  iii,  p.  89. 

According  to  this  explanation,  it  is  sufiicient  to  consti- 
tute any  effect  supernatural  that  it  is  produced  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  same  effect  produced  by  other  influence  is 
not  supernatural ;   and  the  term,  when   applied  to  the 


174  NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION. 

Spirit's  influences,  merely  expresses  the  fact,  that  it  is 
his  influence,  without  determining  its  mode. 

Mr.  DuflSeld,  however,  seems  to  take  a  somewhat  dif- 
ferent view  of  the  subject.  "  To  say  that  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  in  producing  hope  and  faith,  is  his  crea- 
tive eficacy,  lodging  in  the  soul,  '  a  principle  or  disposition' 
that  causes  such  exercises,  is  saying  no  more  of  it  than 
what  may  be  said  of  his  power  in  creating  the  instincts, 
&c.,  of  animals,  and  thus  making  his  work  in  regenera- 
tion altogether  natural,  that  is,  like  that  in  nature,  not  su- 
pernatural, which  it  is  in  fact — an  influence  exerted  in 
pursuance  of  special  design,  and  not  uniformly  and  infalli- 
bly, according  to  fixed  laws  of  nature." — p.  498. 

According  to  this  reasoning,  the  influence  of  the  Spirit 
is  not  supernatural  if  it  goes  beyond  moral  suasion.  But 
surely,  these  men  are  adventurous  polemics,  to  undertake 
to  convince  us,  that  while  mere  persuasion  is  a  supernatu- 
ral process,  there  is  nothing  supernatural  in  creation.  Not- 
withstanding the  discrepancy  between  these  writers,  they 
both  aim  at  reconciling  supernatural  influence  with  mere 
moral  suasion. 

This  doctrine  must  necessarily  share  a  similar  fate  with 
those  which  we  have  already  examined,  inasmuch  as  it 
grows  out  of,  and  depends  upon  them  for  support. 

It  is  a  valid  objection,  that  it  determines  so  positively 
and  specifically  the  mode  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  operations 
in  regeneration — a  subject  which  the  Saviour  declared  to 
be  wrapped  up  in  impenetrable  mystery. 

The  doctrine  is  supposed  to  be  taught  in  those  passages 
of  Scripture  which  speak  of  the  instrumentality  of  truth  in 
asinncr's  conversion  :  such  for  instance  as  these,  "  Of  his 
own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  icord  of  truth."  "  Being  born 
again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the 
word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever."  "  Sanctify 
them  through  thy  truth.     Now  are  ye  clean  through  the 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION.  175 

word  which  I  have  spoken  unto  you,"  &c.  But  the  ques- 
tion is  not,  whether  the  truth  is  employed  in  conversion 
and  sanctification,  but  Avhether  every  other  influence  is 
excluded.  These,  and  similar  passages,  no  more  prove 
that  regeneration  is  accomplished  by  moral  suasion  merely, 
than  those  which  attribute  the  production  of  the  heavens 
and  the  earth  to  the  word  of  God,  prove  that  he  created 
the  universe  by  moral  suasion.  It  is  said,  "  By  the  word 
of  the  Lord  were  the  heavens  made,  and  all  the  host  of 
them  by  the  breath  of  his  mouth.  He  gathereth  the  wa- 
ters of  the  sea  together  as  a  heap :  he  layeth  up  the  depth 
in  store-houses.  Let  all  the  earth  fear  the  Lord  :  let  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  world  stand  in  awe  of  him,  for  he 
spake,  and  it  was  done  ;  he  commanded,  and  it  stood  fast." 
"And  God  said,  Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light." 
"  Through  faith  we  understand  that  the  worlds  were  framed 
hy  the  word  of  God,  so  that  things  which  are  seen  were 
not  made  of  things  which  do  appear.  For  this  they  wil- 
lingly are  ignorant  of,  that  by  the  word  of  God  the  heavens 
were  of  old,  and  the  earth  standing  out  of  the  water  and 
in  the  water :  whereby  the  world  that  then  was,  being 
overflowed  with  water,  perished  :  but  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  which  are  now,  hy  the  same  loord,  are  kept  in  store, 
reserved  imto  fire  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  perdi- 
tion of  ungodly  men."  Here  both  the  creation  and  con- 
servation of  the  world  are  attributed  to  the  word  of  God ; 
but  will  any  one  infer  from  this  fact  that  no  other  influence 
was  exerted  in  their  production  than  that  of  moral  suasion? 
The  resurrection  of  the  body  is  also  ascribed  to  the  word 
of  God.  "Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  the  hour  is  com- 
ing, and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the 
Son  of  God ;  and  they  that  hear  shall  live.  Marvel  not 
at  this  :  for  the  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are 
in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice  and  shall  come  forth.'' 
Will  he  then  raise  the  dead  by  moral  suasion  1 


176  NEW  DIVINITY--MORAL  SUASION. 

We  have  seen  that  the  conversion  of  the  soul,  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  are  all 
attributed  to  the  word  of  God.  Let  us  now  inquire  whe- 
ther the  change  which  takes  place  in  the  soul  is  not,  like 
the  creation  of  the  world,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
ascribed  to  a  power  distinct  from  the  word  of  God.  The 
Apostle  Paul  writes  to  the  Thessalonians  thus :  "  For 
our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only,  but  also  in 
power,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  much  assurance." 
Whatever  the  power  may  have  been  which  accompanied 
the  word,  it  is  clearly  distinguished  from  the  word.  To 
the  Ephesians  he  says,  speaking  of  the  gospel,  "Whereof 
I  was  made  a  minister  according  to  the  gift  of  the  grace 
of  God  given  unto  me  by  the  effectual  working  of  his  power P 
In  the  same  chapter  he  says,  "  Now,  unto  him  that  is  able 
to  do  exceeding  abundantly  above  all  that  we  can  ask  or 
think,  according  to  the  power  tliat  loorketh  in  us,  xnito  liim 
be  glory  in  the  Church  by  Jesus  Christ,  throughout  all 
ages,  world  without  end."  Here  "  the  power  that  work- 
eth  in  us,"  is  evidently  contemplated  as  identical  with  that 
by  which  he  is  able  to  do  all  things.  In  his  prayer 
for  the  Ephesians,  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  epistle,  he 
clearly  identifies  the  power  by  which  believers  are  re- 
newed and  sustained,  with  that  by  which  he  raised  Christ 
from  the  dead.  But  it  is  not  to  the  word  of  God  that  he 
attributes  these  effects  in  this  instance,  but  to  "  the  ex- 
ceeding greatness  of  his  power  !"  and  "  the  working  of  his 
mighty  power."  Peter,  in  his  second  epistle,  says,  "  Ac- 
cording as  his  divine  power  hath  given  imto  us  all  things 
that  pertain  to  life  and  godliness,  through  the  knowledge 
of  Him  that  hath  called  us  to  glory  and  virtue."  These 
texts  may  serve  as  a  specimen  of  the  class  to  which  they 
belong. 

It  may  be  objected  here,  that  although  these  passages 
attribute  the  work  of  spiritual  renovation  to  the  power  of 


NEW  DIVINITY — MORAL  SUASION.  177 

God,  they  do  not  determine  the  kind  of  power — the  mode 
of  operation,  &c.,  whether  it  is  the  power  of  "  moral  sua- 
sion," or  power  literally.  To  this  it  is  replied  that  the 
language  in  these  passages  is  equally  strong  and  definite 
with  that  which  is  any  where  employed  in  attributing  cre- 
ation to  the  power  of  God.  They  speak  of  his  "  power, 
his  divine  power,  his  mighty  power,  the  exceeding  great- 
ness of  his  power."  Where  do  the  inspired  writers  use 
stronger  or  more  definite  language  with  respect  to  the 
creation  of  the  world  ?  It  is  not  necessary  to  cite  passages 
on  this  point.  We  feel  assured  that  every  one  that  might 
be  adduced  would  be  equally  liable  to  the  charge  of  in 
definiteness,  as  to  the  kind  of  power  exerted  ;  and  that  the 
question  might  be  raised,  Avith  equal  propriety,  so  far  as 
the  language  is  concerned,  whether  creation  was  by  moral 
suasion  or  "  physical"  power.  Will  it  be  rejoined,  that 
the  nature  of  the  work  determines  what  kind  of  poAver  was 
concerned  in  creation  1  True  ;  very  true.  And  the  nature 
of  human  depravity,  and  of  the  change  effected  in  spiritual 
renovation,  determines  that  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  influ- 
ence must  be  something  more  than  mere  persuasion. 

We  have  not  undertaken,  in  these  reasonings,  to  deter- 
mine specifically  what  is  the  mode  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
operation.  Our  object  is  simply  to  show  how  groundless 
is  the  supposition  that  it  consists  Avholly  in  moral  sua- 
sion— a  supposition,  which,  it  is  presumed,  no  one  would 
ever  have  professed  to  derive  from  the  oracles  of  God, 
without  having  first  adopted  a  system  of  theology  or  philo- 
sophy which  imperatively  demanded  it. 

8* 


178  NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

MORAL    SUASION    CONTINUED. 

In  the  argument  of  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  proved 
that,  so  far  as  the  language  of  Scripture  is  concerned, 
there  is  the  same  ground  for  concluding  that  the  world 
was  created,  and  that  the  dead  will  be  raised,  by  moral 
suasion,  as  there  is  for  the  doctrine  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
regenerates  the  sinner  by  moral  suasion. 

It  appears  to  be  assumed  by  the  advocates  of  the  moral- 
suasion  theory,  that,  in  case  it  is  rejected,  the  only  remain- 
ing alternative  is,  that  of  holding  that  the  Holy  Spirit  re- 
generates independently  of  the  truth.  This  is  not  the  case- 
Sufficient  reasons  may  be  assigned  for  the  influence  of 
motives  in  the  sinner's  conversion,  while  the  direct  and 
immediate  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  on  the  heart, 
may  be  equally  necessary.  It  is  true,  that  Calvinists  of 
the  Old  School  maintain  that  the  truth  has  nothing  to  do 
with  regeneration  ;  that  its  office  is  to  develop  the  princi- 
ples implanted  by  regeneration ;  that,  previous  to  regenera- 
tion, its  only  effect  is  that  of  irritating  the  spirit  of  rebellion. 
It  is  this  view  which  gives  to  the  reasonings  of  the  New 
School  party  their  plausibility  and  effect.  But  neither  of 
the  parties  is  right.  They  occupy  extreme  positions.  The 
truth  resides  in  the  midway  territory,  which  both  have 
abandoned  to  Methodism. 

But  how,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  conversion  by 
persuasion  merely,  can  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
be  at  all  necessary  ?  Is  it  not  the  office  of  the  written 
word  and  of  the  preacher,  to  persuade  men  ?  Perhaps  it 
will  be  said,  that  the  persuasions  of  the  written  word,  and 
of  the  minister,  invariably  fail  without  the  additional  per- 
suasions of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  whence  arises  the  uni- 
form failure  of  these  instrumentalities  and  agencies?  Is 
it  because  there  is  not  a  sufficiency  of  truth  and  motive  in 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION.  179 

the  v/ord,  and  at  the  command  of  the  minister  ?  Does  the 
Holy  Spirit  make  up  the  deficiency,  by  revealing  truths 
and  presenting  motives,  which  are  not  contained  in  the 
Bible  ?  To  suppose  this,  would  not  only  be  to  reflect  on 
the  word  of  God,  as  inadequate  to  the  ends  for  which  it 
was  given,  but  likewise  to  run  into  the  further  difficulty  of 
supposing  that  God  makes  immediate  revelations  of  truth 
to  rebellious  sinners,  beyond  what  is  contained  in  the  sa- 
cred oracles.  Compare  these  propositions — 1st,  that  no 
other  influence  is  employed  in  regenerating  the  sinner 
than  that  of  persuasion ;  2d,  that  the  sinner  is  fully  able, 
at  any  time,  without  the  grace  of  God,  to  yield  to  the  in- 
fluence of  persuasion  and  become  a  Christian ;  and  3d, 
that  the  minister  of  the  gospel  is  in  possession  of  all  the 
truth  and  motive,  employed  in  the  work  of  conversion,  and 
there  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  strong  tendency  to  the  in- 
ference that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  abso- 
lutely necessary,  and  that  one  man  may  convert  another 
in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word. 

And  although  this  inference  may  be  disclaimed  by  the 
advocates  of  the  theory  under  consideration,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  their  instructions,  in  many  instances,  are  cal- 
culated to  make  the  impression  that  it  is  in  the  power  of 
one  man  to  convert  another.  In  the  work  by  Doctor 
Skinner  and  President  Beecher,  to  which  we  have  several 
times  referred,  there  is  the  following  direction,  "  Actually 
intend,  by  the  divine  blessing,  to  convert  sinners.  It  is 
possible  to  converse  on  the  subject  of  religion,  without 
actually  intending  to  achieve  the  salvation  of  souls.  It  is 
possible  also  to  have  this  intention  along  with  so  little 
firmness,  as  to  make  all  our  efforts  unavailing.  We  must 
intend,  by  the  grace  of  God,  actualhj  to  achieve  the  conver- 
sion of  the  impenitent ;  and  not  only  so,  we  must  fully  and 
decidedly  intend  to  do  it.  It  must  be  the  fixed  purpose  of 
our  soul." 


180  NEW  DIVINITV MORAL  SUASION, 

We  have  no  desire  to  conceal  the  fact  that  the  Scrip- 
tures do,  in  some  passages,  speak  of  Christians  as  con- 
verting sinners  from  the  error  of  their  ways  ;  but  they 
require  us  to  understand  that  the  agency  of  Christians  in 
this  work  is  subordinate  to  that  of  God ;  and  that  the 
work  is,  after  all,  strictly  and  properly  the  work  of  God. 
They  carefully  guard  us  against  the  doctrine  that  it  is  pro- 
perly the  work  of  man.  "  But  unto  as  many  as  received 
him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God, 
even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name  ;  which  were  born, 
.not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of 
man,  but  of  God."  And  there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing 
that  one  man  may  persuade  another  to  perform  those  acts, 
which  are  conditional  to  his  regeneration,  and  thus  exer- 
cise a  very  important  instrumentality,  while  the  work  of 
regeneration  itself,  may  belong  wholly  to  God,  if  it  be  al- 
lowed that  some  other  influence  is  necessary  and  actually 
exerted,  besides  that  of  persuasion.  But  if  no  other  influ- 
ence than  that  of  persuasion  is  necessary  to  the  sinner's 
conversion,  wo  cannot  sec  how  the  deduction  can  be 
fairly  obviated,  that  the  additional  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  not  necessary,  but  that  one  man  is  fully  compe- 
tent to  the  conversion  of  another,  without  their  inter- 
position. 

This  doctrine  presents  to  us  another  difficulty.  If  the 
conversion  of  the  sinner  is  to  be  accomplished  by  moral 
suasion  solely,  and  if  the  persuasions  of  the  written  word, 
and  of  the  minister,  are  inadequate,  we  cannot  understand 
how  even  the  Holy  Spirit  can  accomplish  the  task.  Let 
us  inquire,  what  is  the  difficulty  which  remains  for  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  overcome  ?  What  is  the  cause  of  the  uni- 
form failure  of  the  word  and  the  minister  ?  It  is  frequently 
intimated  by  the  teachers  of  this  doctrine,  that  while  the 
Scriptures  contain  all  the  material  of  motive  which  is 
necessary  for  the  purpose  of  conversion,  provided  the 


NEW  DIVINITY — MORAL  SUASION.  181 

sinner  would  only  attend  to  it,  he  invariably  refuses  the 
attention  necessary,  and  that  this  is  the  cause  of  the 
failure.  This  is  expressly  affirmed  by  Mr.  Hinton.  He 
says,  "If  the  faculty  of  attention  (to  use  this  phrase- 
ology) shovi^s  how  a  man  may  be  and  do  what  he  pleases, 
it  will  equally  explain  to  us  why,  in  so  many  instances,  he 
is  not  what  the  state  of  things  around  him  is  adapted  to 
make  him ;  why  his  conduct  is  so  often  at  variance  both 
with  his  interest  and  his  duty.  This  melancholy  result 
arises  from  inattention  to  the  more  serious  objects  set 
before  him.  He  sees  them,  but  does  not  regard  them. 
The  perception  of  them  is  momentary ;  they  are  instantly 
forgotten,  and  therefore  without  influence.  It  matters  not 
how  momentous  such  things  may  be  in  themselves,  nor 
how  often  they  may  be  exhibited  and  perceived  ;  if  no 
attention  be  paid  to  them,  or  if  the  attention  they  are 
adapted  to  excite  be  withheld,  they  can  exert  no  power. 
Trifles  lighter  than  air  will  outweigh  the  most  solemn 
topics,  if  the  former  be  intently  dwelt  upon,  and  the  latter 
banished  from  the  thoughts." — p.  96. 

Here  we  will  venture  to  ask,  since  the  subject  is  thus 
thrown  open  for  inquiry,  how  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  effect 
the  object  of  fixing  the  attention  of  the  sinner,  if  no  other 
influence  is  to  be  employed,  but  that  of  truth  and  motive  ? 
We  are  not  at  liberty  to  suppose  that  the  divine  agent 
accomplishes  this  object  by  revealing  truth  which  is  not 
contained  in  the  Bible  ;  and  which  is  superior  to  that 
which  is  found  in  the  Bible,  in  its  adaptation  to  the  work. 
Such  a  doctrine  would  carry  us  out  to  the  utmost  limits  of 
fanaticism.  Will  it  be  said,  (as  no  one  individual  is  sup- 
posed to  be  acquainted  with  all  the  truth  which  God  has 
revealed,)  that,  the  Holy  Spirit  has  a  wide  range  in  pre 
senting  to  the  mind  that  truth  with  which  it  was  previously 
unacquainted,  without  going  beyond  the  limits  of  Scrip- 
ture ?     This  suggestion,  it  is  true,  would  avoid  the  diffi- 


182  NEW  DIVINITY — MORAL  SUASION. 

culty  of  teaching  that  the  Holy  Spirit  reveals  truths, 
which  are  not  in  the  Bible,  but  it  is  encumbered  with 
serious  embarrassments.  It  as  certainly  teaches  the  doc- 
trine of  immediate  revelation.  The  disclosure  of  the  fact 
or  proposition  to  the  sinner,  is  as  much  a  direct  revelation 
as  its  disclosure  to  the  prophet  or  apostle.  And  he  may 
say  of  it  what  the  Apostle  Paul  said  of  the  gospel  which 
he  preached,  when  he  asserted  his  inspiration,  and  vindi- 
cated his  apostleship,  "  For  I  neither  received  it  of  man, 
neither  was  I  taught  it  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ."  Indeed,  to  adopt  this  view,  would  be  to  take 
refuge  in  one  of  the  most  exceptionable  tenets  of  Quaker- 
ism. It  will  be  time  enough  to  refute  it  in  this  connec- 
tion when  it  is  actually  proposed  as  the  solution.  At 
present  we  shall  content  ourselves  with  simply  exhibiting 
it  as  an  alternative.  To  avoid  this  alternative,  we  must 
suppose  that  the  Holy  Spirit  presents  to  the  mind,  in  the 
process  of  persuasion,  such  truths  only  as  it  has  come  in 
possession  of  by  the  usual  means  of  information.  If,  then, 
the  Holy  Spirit  presents  directly  to  the  mind  of  the  sinner 
no  other  truths  than  those  which  have  been  presented  by 
other  means,  and  to  which  the  sinner  has  all  along  refused 
his  attention,  we  ask,  what  is  there  in  the  single  circum- 
stance of  their  being  presented  directly  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
which  may  be  relied  on  to  fix  his  attention  ?  Can  he  not 
as  easily  withhold  it  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other  ?  Is 
not  the  probability  of  his  withholding  it  equal  in  both  cases  ? 
Has  the  rebellious  sinner  any  special  preference  for  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which  lays  the  foundation  of  certainty  that, 
while  the  truth  will  surely  be  neglected  when  presented 
by  the  minister,  or  read  in  the  Bible,  it  will  be  instantly 
attended  to  when  presented  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 

Is  it  not  just  as  certain  that  all  the  eflbrts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  excite  attention  will  be  defeated  by  a  voluntary 
refusal  on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  as  that  the  clforts  of  the 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION.  183 

minister  will  be  defeated  ?  Will  it  be  said,  at  this  point, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  omnipresent  and  omniscient,  and 
can  therefore  present  the  truth  at  the  most  favourable  time, 
availing  himself  of  the  most  propitious  conjuncture  of  cir- 
cumstances ?  We  have  only  to  suppose  that  the  minister 
of  the  gospel  shall  happen  to  present  it  at  such  a  time,  and 
the  services  of  the  Holy  Spirit  may  be  dispensed  with,  in 
that  instaiice  at  least.  Perhaps  it  may  be  insisted  on, 
that  while  the  Holy  Spirit  makes  no  revelation  of  truth, 
he  presents  it  in  a  clearer  light  than  does  the  written 
word  or  the  minister.  This  seems  to  be  the  view  which 
Mr,  Finney  takes :  "  Having  direct  access  to  the  mind, 
and  knowing  infinitely  well  the  whole  history  and  state  of 
each  individual  sinner,  he  employs  that  truth  which  is  best 
adapted  to  his  particular  case,  and  then  sets  it  home  with 
divine  power.  He  gives  it  such  vividness,  strength,  and 
power,  that  the  sinner  quails,  and  throws  down  his  weapons 
of  rebellion,  and  turns  to  the  Lord.  Under  his  influence 
the  truth  burns  and  cuts  its  way  like  fire.  He  makes  the 
truth  stand  out  in  such  aspects,  that  it  crushes  the  proud- 
est man  down  with  the  weight  of  a  mountain.  If  men 
were  disposed  to  obey  God,  the  truth  is  given  with  suffi- 
cient clearness  in  the  Bible  ;  and  from  preaching  they 
could  learn  all  that  is  necessary  for  them  to  know.  But 
because  they  are  disinclined  to  obey  it,  God  clears  it  up 
before  their  minds,  and  pours  in  a  blaze  of  convincing  light 
upon  their  souls,  which  they  cannot  withstand,  and  they 
yield  to  it,  and  obey  God,  and  are  saved."  Here  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  represented  as  making  the  truth  eflectual  by  giv- 
ing it  "  vividness,  strength,  and  power," — by  making  it 
"  stand  out  in  such  aspects,"  &c., — by  clearing  "  it  up 
before  their  minds,"  and  pouring  "  in  a  blaze  of  convincing 
light  upon  their  souls,  which  they  cannot  withstand." 

But  here  again  we  are  in  difficulties,  on  the  supposition 
that  no  new  truths  are  presented  to  the  mind.     How  does 


184  NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION. 

the  Holy  Gliost  make  the  truth  so  much  clearer  to  the 
mind  of  the  sinner,  than  when  it  comes  from  the  pens  of 
those  who  wrote  and  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  who  gave  it,  not  in  the  words  which 
man's  wisdom,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  taught  them  ?  It  must 
be  remembered  too,  that  the  divine  agent  has  the  human 
mind  to  deal  with.  Suppose  the  sinner  refuses  his  atten- 
tion to  the  truth,  as  he  has  done  before,  how  much  clearer 
will  it  be  to  him  ?  Besides,  the  effect  of  the  truth,  no  mat- 
ter by  whom  it  may  be  presented,  must  be  modified  by  the 
condition  of  the  mind,  as  to  ignorance  or  intellectual  im- 
provement. A  proposition,  presented  to  a  cultivated 
mind,  may  strike  it  with  much  greater  force  than  it  would 
an  uncultivated  mind.  How  will  the  Holy  Spirit  go 
about  making  the  proposition  as  clear  to  the  man  of 
vmcultivated  mind,  as  to  the  other  ?  And  how  will  he  pro- 
ceed to  make  it  still  clearer  to  the  more  intellectual  man  ? 
Does  the  Holy  Spirit  give  definitions  of  terms  ?  Does  he 
resort  to  formal  illustrations,  such  as  are  not  contained  in 
the  word  of  God,  or  presented  by  the  minister  ?  The  only 
and  universal  obstacle  to  the  success  of  the  minister  and 
the  Scriptures,  is  supposed  to  be  the  indisposition  of  the 
sinner  to  obey,  and  the  refusal  of  his  attention ;  and  we 
wish  to  know  hov/  the  Holy  Spirit  is  to  overcome  these 
obstacles  by  merely  presenting  the  same  truths  ?  We  can 
easily  perceive  that  the  Holy  Spirit  can  arouse  attention 
to  the  truth,  if  some  other  mode  of  influence  than  the  mere 
presentation  of  truth  be  employed.  And  that  he  accom- 
plishes this  object  by  some  other  mode  of  influence,  we 
firmly  believe.  Indeed,  the  passage  quoted  from  Mr.  F. 
derives  its  plausibility  from  intimations  Avhich  it  incon- 
sistently contains,  of  the  exertion  of  some  other  influence. 
He  tells  us  that  the  Holy  Spirit  "  employs  that  truth  which 
is  best  adapted,  &c.,  and  then  sets  it  home  with  divine 
power"  and  that  " under  his  influence  the  truth  burns  and 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION.  185 

cuts  its  way  like  fire."  Here  is  a  power,  an  influence, 
spoken  of,  which  does  not  belong  intrinsically  to  the  truth, 
no  matter  how  clear  it  may  be.  It  is  a  power  distinct  from 
the  truth,  and  with  which  God  "  sets  home"  the  truth — 
an  influence,  under  which  "  the  truth  burns  and  cuts  its 
way  like  fire." 

These  difficulties  are  not  unfelt  by  the  advocates  of  the 
moral-suasion  theory  ;  and  hence,  earnestly  as  they  insist 
on  conversion  by  the  presentation  of  truth  merely,  in  some 
instances,  we  find  them  in  other  instances  contradicting 
themselves  and  each  other,  and  acknowledging  its  inade- 
quacy ;  and  asserting  the  intervention  of  some  additional 
influence.  Mr.  Duffield  writes,  "  But  is  this  all  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Spirit  ?  Does  his  influence  extend  no  further 
than  the  mere  exhibition,  in  the  word,  of  motives,  argu- 
ments, objects,  and  considerations,  calculated  to  move  the 
heart,  and  change  the  will?  The  sacred  Scriptures  inti- 
mate something  more  than  this.  He  does  in  this  way 
strive  with  men  tmiversally,  who  hear  the  gospel,  and 
sometimes  with  remarkable  evidences  of  its  influence,  as 
in  seasons  of  revival  of  religion,  when  almost  every  heart 
is  made  to  quake,  and  every  mind  is  impressed  with  the 
solemn  conviction  that  God  is  in  the  midst  of  his  people." 
—p.  482. 

Compare  this  passage  with  the  quotations  from  the  same 
author  in  the  chapter  immediately  preceding,  and  the  con- 
tradiction Avill  be  too  apparent  for  denial.  He  there  says, 
"  If  you  hope  for  a  mighty  creative  poAver  to  be  exerted 
upon  you  irrespective  of  your  voluntary  exercise,  your 
hopes  are  baseless  and  visionary.  The  Spirit's  efficacious 
agency  is  through  the  suasive  influence  of  truth,  and  if  you 
resist  it,  you  resist  the  only  means  that  you  or  any  one  else 
can  hope  to  be  exerted  for  you  to  bring  you  to  repentance." 
He  here  affirms,  not  only  that  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  is 
through  the  suasive  influence  of  truth,  but  likewise,  that 


186  NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION. 

in  resisting  the  influence  of  truth,  the  onhj  means  are  re- 
sisted which  God  employs  to  bring  sinners  to  repentance. 
We  would  also,  at  this  point,  remind  the  reader  of  the 
language  already  quoted  from  the  author  of  "  Views  in 
Theology."  "  We  are  clearly  taught  in  the  volume  of 
inspiration,  that  the  Spirit  does  exert  an  agency  in  the 
mind  that  is  employed  in  the  communication  to  it  of  truth, 
and  through  that  medium  convicts,  renews,  and  sanctifies 
it,  and  thus  produces  all  the  various  classes  of  effects  that 
are  ever  in  the  Scriptures  attributed  to  his  agency."  This 
same  doctrine  is  asserted  by  the  editor  of  the  New-York 
Observer,  in  the  number  dated  August  11,  1837.  "From 
another  account  it  seems  that  tract  distribution  may  be  the 
means  of  a  revival ;  and  from  another,  that  the  ordinary 
preaching  of  the  gospel  on  the  sabbath  may  have  that 
honour.  We  are  not  therefore  confined  to  any  one  sys- 
tem of  means.  The  exhibition  of  divine  truth,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  saving  souls,  seems  to  be  the  only  indispensable 
requisite ;  and  this  may  be  successful,  whatever  may  be 
the  form  of  exhibition !"  The  assertion  of  an  influence 
additional  to  the  truth  is  no  doubt  compelled  by  the  exi- 
gencies in  which  they  find  themselves  involved. 

Mr.  Hinton  contends  for  an  additional  influence.  He 
says,  "  The  positions  we  have  endeavoured,  we  trust  suc- 
cessfully, to  maintain  in  the  preceding  chapter  are,  first, 
that  there  is  a  personal  and  special  influence  of  the  Spirit 
superadditional  to  the  word ;  and  secondly,  that  such  an 
influence  is  actually  exerted  in  the  conversion  of  the  un- 
renewed, as  well  as  in  the  sanctification  of  the  renewed 
heart." — p.  59. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  they  have  relin- 
quished the  doctrine  of  conversion  by  persuasion  merely. 
They  caution  their  readers  against  such  a  supposition. 
The  "  superadditional"  influence,  whatever  it  may  be,  is 
represented  as  strictly  analogous  to  that  which  one  man 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  SUASION".  18J7 

frequently  exerts  on  another.  "What  we  have  main- 
tained," says  Mr.  H.',  "is,  that  attention  to  the  word  is 
induced  otherwise  than  by  the  word  itself,  and  that  such 
inducement  is  to  be  attributed  to  the  suasion  of  the  Spirit 
of  God.  That  there  is  ample  foundation  for  the  position, 
without  exceeding  the  just  analogy  derived  from  the  vari- 
ous modes  of  action  of  one  human  mind  on  another,  we 
deem  has  been  made  apparent ;  and  if  that  analogy  were 
even  exceeded  by  the  Almighty  Father  of  spirits,  we  do 
not  perceive  that  such  influence  would  be  justly  chargea- 
ble with  being  irrational.  When  the  objector  is  prepared 
to  say  the  spirit  of  man  never  influenced  his  mind  without 
words,  it  will  be  time  enough  to  admit  the  force  of  his 
objection  to  allow  the  Spirit  of  God  an  access  to  the  mind 
distinct  from  the  word  of  God." — p.  61. 

Perhaps  the  reader  will  be  ready  to  inquire  what  this 
"  superadditional"  influence  is.  We  will  endeavour  to  en- 
lighten him,  so  far  as  we  are  enlightened,  on  the  subject. 
Mr.  Duffield  says,  "  We  see  it  in  the  impressions  which 
a  father  has  made  upon  his  son,  and  trace  its  wondrous 
developments  as  that  son  may  roam  in  distant  lands."  He 
speaks  in  this  connection  of  "  the  winning  influence  of 
certain  indications  of  aff'ection,  made  by  the  twinklings  of 
the  eye,  which  rivet  the  heart."  He  tells  us  "  there  is  a 
sort  of  sympathy  between  human  spirits,  which  may  be 
touched  to  produce  emotion,  with  as  much  certainty  as 
we  can  strike  the  chords  of  music,  to  secure  the  very 
sounds  desired."  And  that  "what,  in  these  things  we 
concede  to  man,  must  be  attributed,  in  an  infinitely  greater 
decrree,  to  that  Spirit  who  searcheth  the  heart  and  trieth 
the  reins  of  the  children  of  men." — p.  485. 

Mr.  Hinton  remarks,  on  this  point,  "  Who  has  not  felt 
that  the  humble  attitude  and  suppliant  eye  has  a  powerful 
influence  to  persuade,  distinct  from,  though  connected 
with  the  facts  presented ;  or  that  proud  and  haughty  de- 


188  NEW  DIVINITY — MORAL  SUASION. 

meaner  induce  the  refusal  of  a  request,  which  would  other- 
wise have  been  cheerfully  granted.  If  spirit,  when  clogged 
with  mortal  clay,  has  such  methods  of  access  to  its  felloAV- 
spirit,  who  will  be  found  bold  enough  to  deny  that  methods 
equally  silent,  rational,  and  efficacious  are  possessed  by 
that  Spirit  Avhich  breathed  into  us  the  living  soul  ?" — p.  29. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  fixes  the  at- 
tention of  the  sinner,  and  regenerates  him ;  and  thus  makes 
up  for  the  inadequacy  of  the  truth,  by  making  certain  im- 
pressions which  correspond  with  "  the  impressions  which 
a  father  has  made  upon  his  son  ;"  by  "  the  winning  influ- 
ence of  certain  indications  of  affection"  corresponding 
with  those  "  made  by  the  very  twinklings  of  the  eye ;"  by 
availing  himself  of  some  "  sort  of  sympathy"  bptween  him- 
self and  the  human  spirit,  "  Avhich  may  be  touched  to  pro- 
duce designed  emotions;"  and  by  some  movement  analo- 
gous to  *'  the  humble  attitude,  and  suppliant  eye,"  which 
have  "  a  powerful  influence  to  persuade."  But  he  is  not 
allowed  to  exert  any  other  influence  than  that  of  persua- 
sion after  all ;  and  his  superiority  over  man,  in  the  Avork 
of  conversion,  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  possessing  these 
additional  means  of  persuasion  in  a  higher  degree. 

Such  subterfuges  as  these,  show  plainly  that  those  who 
resort  to  them  are  hard  run.  They  are  compelled  to  ac- 
knowledge, notwithstanding  their  positive  assertions  to 
the  contrary,  that  the  truth  alone  is  inadequate  to  the  sin- 
ner's conversion,  and  yet  they  are  required  to  keep  within 
the  limits  of  mere  suasion.  They  think,  therefore,  to  sup- 
ply the  great  desideratum  by  undefined  "impressions," 
and  the  influence  of  sympathy,  and  looks,  and  attitudes, 
and  take  the  responsibility  of  asserting,  without  a  hint  of 
authority  from  the  Scriptures,  that  such  is  the  influence 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  exerts. 

The  reader  will,  of  course,  form  his  own  conclusions, 
but  with  me,  the  difficulty  specified  at  the  commencement 


NEW  DIVINITY MORAL  .SUASION.  189 

of  the  argument,  remains  in  unabated  force.  I  cannot 
see,  if  the  written  word  and  the  ministry  are  insufficient 
for  the  conversion  of  the  sinner,  and  no  other  influence 
be  allowed  than  that  of  persuasion,  how  even  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  accomplish  the  work.  The  explanation  just 
noticed  is  too  futile  for  refutation. 

Mr.  Duffield  intimates  that  there  is  something  more  than 
even  the  additional  influence,  described  by  him  in  the 
passages  we  have  quoted.  But  what  this  "  agency  pre- 
cisely is,"  he  will  not  presume  to  say.  He  does  not  fail, 
however,  to  caution  us  against  the  supposition  that  it  is 
any  thing  more  than  persuasion.  His  caution  in  not  at- 
tempting to  define  this  further  agency,  is  commendable. 
He  has  now  arrived  at  a  point  where  he  will  do  well  to 
hide  himself  in  the  mysteriousness  of  his  subject,  and 
issue,  from  his  concealment,  a  suitable  rebuke  to  those 
who  may  impiously  adventure  to  inquire  into  the  mode  of 
the  Holy  Spirit's  operations. 

We  will  conclude  this  chapter  by  noticing  the  argument 
contained  in  the  quotation  from  Mr.  Finney.  He  asks, 
"  But  did  not  the  serpent  change  Adam's  heart  by  motives ; 
and  cannot  the  Spirit  of  God,  with  infinitely  higher  mo- 
tives, exert  as  great  a  power  over  mind  as  he  can  ?  Can 
the  old  serpent  change  a  heart  from  a  perfectly  holy  to  a 
perfectly  sinful  one,  by  the  power  of  motives,  and  cannot 
the  infinitely  wise  God  do  as  much  as  Satan  did  ?"  To 
this  we  answer,  that,  although  Satan  did  corrupt  our  first 
parents  by  arguments  and  motives,  it  does  not  follow  that 
they  could  be  regenerated  by  the  same  means.  Who  does 
not  know  that  it  takes  a  much  less  power  to  corrupt  than 
it  does  to  sanctify  ?  We  have  shown,  Ave  think,  that  it 
requires  other  influences  to  restore  to  holiness  than  mo- 
tives merely.  Nor  will  it  follow  that  God  cannot  "  do 
as  much  as  Satan  did,"  because  he  cannot  change  a 
heart  from  a  perfectly  sinful  one  to  a  perfectly  holy  one^ 


190  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

by  the  power  of  motives.  Does  Mr.  F.  believe  that  Satan 
could  have  changed  the  heart  of  Adam  to  holiness  again, 
by  the  power  of  motives,  or  by  any  power  ?  Would  we  not 
argue  just  as  soundly  as  Mr.  F.,  if  we  were  to  infer,  that 
because  a  wicked  man  may  corrupt  a  good  man  by  mo- 
tives, therefore  a  good  man  may  surely  sanctify  a  bad  man 
by  motives  ;  and  that,  if  this  be  not  the  case,  the  bad  man 
can  exert  a  greater  power  over  mind  than  the  good  man, 
and  thus  relieve  the  Divine  Being  of  the  necessity  of  hav- 
ing any  thing  at  all  to  do  in  the  business  ? 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


PRAYER, 


We  have  now  fully  entered  on  that  part  of  the  investi- 
gation to  which  we  have  looked  forward,  as,  by  its  own 
nature,  invested  with  the  most  stirring  interest  to  every 
believer  in  the  doctrines  of  Methodism.  To  this  point  we 
have  approached  by  slow  and  cautious  advances,  so  as  to 
be  satisfied  that  we  have  cleared  our  way  before  us,  and 
trodden  on  firm  ground.  And  we  are  now  prepared  to 
charge  on  New  Divinity  the  sentiment,  that  for  the  sinner 
to  ■pray  to  God  for  mercy,  before  he  is  regenerated,  or,  in 
other  words,  before  lie  has  become  a  Christian,  is  not  only 
unnecessary,  but  actually  rebellious. 

The  doctrine  results  immediately  from  the  positions  we 
have  just  refuted.  If  one  single  act  of  the  mind  changes 
a  man  from  an  impenitent  rebel  to  a  Christian — if  the  veiy 
first  act  which  conforms  to  the  will  of  God,  is  that  which 
secures  or  constitutes  the  great  change,  it  is  perfectly 
plain,  that  any  act  by  which  it  is  preceded  must  be  at 
variance  with  the  will  of  God.     An  attempt,  therefore,  to 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  191 

pray  to  God  before  regeneration,  must  be  accounted  re- 
bellious. This  act  must  be  classed  with  any  other  act 
performed  under  the  same  circumstances.  It  is  the  at- 
tempt of  a  wholly  impenitent  and  unbelieving  man  to  pray, 
who  has,  as  yet,  refused  to  surrender  any  one  point  to 
divine  authority. 

But  it  is  not  only  by  tracing  the  theory  of  New  Di- 
vinity from  its  fundamental  principles,  along  the  line  of 
interrhediate  deductions  to  the  present  point,  that  we  ar- 
rive at  this  consequence.  It  flows  immediately  from  the 
doctrine  of  natural  ability,  as  held  by  the  advocates  of  this 
scheme.  For  what  shall  the  impenitent  man  pray  ?  Shall 
he  pray  for  the  pardon  of  his  sins  ?  How  can  he  expect 
that  favour  when  he  is  fully  able  to  do,  at  any  moment, 
that  which  would  make  him  a  Christian,  but  perversely 
refuses  to  do  it  ?  Would  not  this  be  to  ask  God  to  forgive 
him  while  he  prefers  to  continue  in  rebellion  ?  Shall  he 
pray  for  divine  influence  to  assist  him  to  repent  and  be- 
lieve ?  This  Avould  be  to  ask  God  to  help  him  to  do  that 
which  he  is  able  to  do  of  himself,  and  which  he  is  pre- 
vented from  doing  instantly,  solely  by  unwilling-ness.  It 
would  be  most  barefaced  and  impudent  rebellion.  Thus 
we  see  that  while  prayer  for  pardon,  spiritual  influence, 
and  regeneration,  fully  accords  with  the  principles  of  Me- 
thodism, the  principles  of  New  Divinity  construe  it  into  a 
wanton  abomination,  or  a  gross  delusion. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  show,  by  quotations,  that  the 
advocates  of  this  system  are  not  unapprized  of  its  bearings 
in  this  direction,  and  that  they,  on  the  contrary,  adopt, 
and  endeavour  to  sustain  this  inference  in  their  public  in- 
structions. 

Mr.  Finney,  in  his  lectures  on  "  False  Comforts  for 
Sinners,"  specifies  "  telling  the  sinner  to  pray  for  a  new 
heart,"  as  a  mode  of  administering  false  comfort.  "I  once 
heard,"  says  he,  "  a  celebrated  Sunday  school  teacher  do 


192  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

this : — He  was  almost,  the  father  of  Sunday  schools  in  this 
country.  He  called  a  little  girl  up  to  him,  and  began  to 
talk  to  her.  '  My  little  daughter,  are  you  a  Christian  V 
No,  sir.  '  Well,  you  cannot  be  a  Christian  yourself,  can 
you  V  No,  sir.  '  No,  you  cannot  be  a  Christian.  You 
cannot  change  your  heart  yourself ;  but  you  must  pray  for 
a  new  heart.  That  is  all  you  can  do  ;  pray  to  God.  God 
will  give  you  a  new  heart.'  He  was  an  aged  and  vene- 
rable man  ;  but  I  felt  almost  disposed  to  rebuke  him  openly 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  I  could  not  bear  to  hear  him 
deceive  that  child — telling  her  she  could  not  be  a  Chris- 
tian. Does  God  say,  '  Pray  for  a  new  heart  V  Never. 
He  says,  '  Make  you  a  new  heart.'  And  the  sinner  is  not 
to  be  told  to  pray  to  God  to  do  his  duty  for  him,  but  to  go 
and  do  it  himself." — p.  318. 

According  to  this  statement,  an  aged  and  venerable  man, 
almost  the  father  of  Sunday  schools  in  this  country,  nar- 
rowly escaped  an  open  rebuke  from  this  apostle  of  New 
Divinity,  for  telling  a  little  girl  that  she  could  not  change 
her  own  heart,  but  must  pray  to  God  to  change  it.  We 
are  also  authoritatively  informed  that  God  does  not  require 
the  sinner  to  pray  for  a  new  heart. 

This  assertion  of  Mr.  F.  was  made  in  full  view  of  the 
prayer  of  the  psalmist  for  a  clean  heart  and  a  right  spirit 
— and  anticipating  that  it  could  be  brought  forward  to  re- 
fute his  rash  dogmatism,  he  goes  to  work  to  dispose  of  it : 
"  I  know  that  the  psalmist,  a  good  man,  prayed,  '  Create 
in  me  a  clean  heart,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me.' 
He  had  faith,  and  prayed  in  faith.  But  that  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  setting  an  absolute  rebel  to  pray  for  a 
new  heart." 

It  will  be  perceived  at  once,  that  tliis  attempt  at  argu- 
ment is  based  on  the  assumption  that  there  are  no  degrees 
of  faith  or  repentance  ;  that  a  man  is  either  wholly  unbe- 
lieving and  an  obstinate  rebel,  or  a  regenerate  man.     The 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  193 

psalmist  is  justified  by  Mr.  Finney  on  the  ground  that  he 
was  "  a  good  man,"  and  had  "  faith."  Can  it  be  possible 
that  Mr.  F.  did  not  see  the  fatal  absurdity  into  which  he 
was  about  to  plunge  himself?  What  need  had  the  psalmist 
to  pray  for  a  clean  heart  and  a  right  spirit  ?  Had  he  not 
changed  his  own  heart  ?  Was  not  his  petition  wholly  su- 
perfluous ?  Besides,  if  the  psalmist  was  not  in  possession 
of  a  clean  heart,  why  did  he  not  create  it  himself?  Or 
has  a  "  good  man,"  who  has  faith,  less  power  in  this  re- 
spect than  an  obstinate  rebel,  or  an  unconverted  sabbath 
school  girl,  so  that  while  these  are  able  to  change  their 
own  hearts  and  renew  their  own  spirits,  and  have  no  right 
to  call  on  God  for  help,  the  good  man  has  not  the  power 
to  do  it,  but  must  call  on  God  to  do  it  for  him  ?  Shame 
on  the  man  who  can  deliberately  advance  and  publish  such 
nonsense  on  so  sacred  and  awful  a  subject ! 

He  also  tells  us  that  to  direct  the  sinner  "  to  pray  for 
repentance,"  or  "  conviction,"  or  "  for  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
show  him  his  sins,"  is  to  comfort  him  falsely. — p.  320. 

As  Mr.  F.  is  looked  upon  as  an  ultraist,  even  in  New 
Divinity,  it  may  be  supposed  that  he  is  solitary  in  his  op- 
position to  this  Scriptural  and  indispensable  practice. 
This  is  not  the  case.  This  leaven  leavens  the  whole 
lump.  Mr.  Duffield  says,  evidently  referring  to  the  prac- 
tice of  Methodists,  "  Besides,  this  method  of  procedure  is 
inconsistent  with  itself.  The  sinner  is  to  be  told  '  that 
effectual  help  may  be  obtained  by  earnest  entreaty' — that 
if  he  asks  aright  he  will  be  heard.  He  cannot  this  very 
instant  believe ;  he  must  not  dare  to  do  so  in  his  own 
strength :  he  must  be  '  forbidden  to  attempt  it,'  but  if  he 
prays  sincerely  and  fervently,  help  will  be  found.  And 
this,  with  some,  is  '  preaching  the  whole  counsel  of  God,' 
and  to  neglect  to  do  so  is  '  keeping  back  the  truth ! ! !' 
The  first  may  produce,  as  it  does  among  those  who  adopt 
the  '  seeking'  plan,  a  great  deal  of  noisy  excitement,  and 

9 


■m    .. 

194  NEW   DIVINITY PRAYER. 

in  many  cases  the  most  fatal  delusion,  and  abominable 
hypocrisy.  We  speak  that  which  we  have  seen,  and  testify 
that  which  we  do  know.  The  other  suggestion  about 
praying  aright,  only  tends  to  distract  the  sinner's  attention, 
and  turn  it  away  from  Christ  to  himself.  He  is  put  upon 
inquiry  what  it  is  to  pray  aright,  and  examining  his  own 
feelings,  and  it  is  morally  impossible,  in  such  a  case,  for 
the  mind  to  wake  up,  under  the  influence  of  the  great  ob- 
jects of  our  faith." — p.  547. 

"  But  as  he  (the  minister)  would  not  throw  the  soul  on 
the  very  threshold  of  the  kingdom,  immeasurably,  and  per- 
haps eternally  back,  let  him  beware  how  he  directs  him  to 
pray,  or  to  use  the  means." — p.  548. 

Before  Ave  proceed,  it  may  be  well  to  notice  the  sug- 
gestions which  Mr.  D.  throws  out,  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
paraging the  "  seeking  plan,"  as  he  calls  it.  The  doc- 
trine, that  effectual  help  may  be  obtained  by  earnest 
entreaty,  "  may"  and  "  does"  produce,  among  those  who 
adopt  the  "  seeking  plan,"  "  noisy  excitements,"  "  fatal 
delusion,  and  abominable  hj-pocrisy."  We  shall  be  pre- 
pared to  surrender  the  doctrine  in  question,  when  New 
Divinity  has  made  us  infidels,  and  not  before.  Is  there 
any  doctrine  of  the  word  of  God  more  clearly  and  em- 
phatically taught,  than  that  help  is  to  be  obtained  by 
prayer  ?  Or  is  it  earnestness  in  prayer  that  is  so  pernicious  1 
Did  not  Jacob  entreat  earnestly,  when,  wrestling  with  the 
Angel  of  the  covenant,  he  said,  "  I  will  not  let  thee  go, 
except  thou  bless  me  ?"  Did  not  the  psalmist  pray  ear- 
nestly ? — What  does  this  language  mean — "  Forsake  me 
not,  O  Lord  ;  O  my  God,  be  not  far  from  me.  Make  haste 
to  help  me,  O  Lord  God  of  my  salvation  ?"  Psa.  xxxviii. 
He  called  upon  God,  and  cried  tinto  him  with  his  voice. 
Was  there  not  earnestness  in  the  prayer  of  the  publican, 
when  he  smote  upon  his  breast  and  said,  "  God  be  merci- 
ful to  me  a  sinner  ?"  Did  not  the  Saviour  pray  with  strong 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  195 

cries  and  tears  1  Sometimes  this  earnestness  produced  a 
little  "  noisy  excitement"  too,  as  in  the  case  of  Bartimeus, 
which  offended  others,  but  in  no  instance  incurred  the 
disapprobation  of  the  Saviour.  As  to  delusion,  we  shall 
reserve  what  we  have  to  say  until  we  come  to  examine 
the  tendencies  of  New  Divinity  in  that  direction.  The 
objection,  that  telling  the  sinner  "  that  if  he  asks  aright 
he  will  be  heard,"  "  only  tends  to  distract  his  attention, 
and  turn  it  away  from  Christ  to  himself" — that  "he  is 
put  upon  inquiring  what  it  is  to  pray  aright,  and  ex- 
amining his  own  feelings,"  and  that  "  it  is  morally  im- 
possible, in  such  a  case,  for  the  mind  to  wake  up  under 
the  great  objects  of  our  faith,"  is  palpably  fallacious.  It 
lies  equally  against  self-examination  on  any  point.  Is 
there  no  danger  of  the  sinner  taking  that  for  submission 
which  is  not  submission  ?  Do  not  the  preachers  of  New 
Divinity  frequently  detect  in  their  converts  the  indulgence 
of  "  premature  hopes  ?"  And  shall  the  sinner  be  forbidden 
to  inquire  what  it  is  to  repent  or  submit,  or  to  "  examine 
his  own  feelings,"  and  acts,  to  see  whether  they  accord 
with  the  requirements  of  God  or  not  ?  Must  he  go  on,  and 
take  it  for  granted  that  he  is  doing  just  what  is  right,  and 
conclude  that  he  is,  of  course,  a  Christian  ?  And  will  the 
advocates  of  such  a  blind  and  headlong  course  as  this, 
charge  with  a  tendency  to  promote  delusion,  the  doctrines 
which  require  that  the  sinner  shall  examine  his  motives  and 
actions,  and  ascertain  whether  they  are  in  accordance  or 
at  variance  with  the  law  of  God  ?  If  Mr.  D.  will  prove 
that  it  is  impossible  to  pray  otherwise  than  aright,  we 
need  not  give  ourselves  nor  the  sinner  any  further  trouble 
on  the  subject. 

We  will  present  another  example  from  this  author:—- 
"  Why  then  shall  the  sinner  be  told  to  pray,  or  to  do  any 
thing  else,  as  though  it  could  directly  or  indirectly  con- 
duce to  his  salvation,  when  at  the  moment  he  refuses  to 


196  NEW   DIVINITY PRAYER. 

believe  ?  Is  it  true  that  asking  and  seeking  are  acceptable 
to  God,  unless  there  is  faith  ?  Does  he  not  say,  '  He  that 
cometh  unto  God  must  believe  that  without  faith  it  is  im- 
possible to  please  him' — '  That  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith 
is  sin  V  "  Here  is  a  plain  intimation  that  prayer  on  the 
part  of  the  sinner  cannot  conduce  either  directly  or  indi- 
rectly to  his  salvation.  The  argument  by  which  this 
opinion  is  attempted  to  be  sustained,  has  been  amply  re- 
futed. It  proceeds  on  the  principle,  that  the  first  act 
of  faith,  or  any  degree  of  faith,  seciu*es  salvation.  But 
if  this  be  the  case,  there  is  no  need,  as  we  have  shown, 
even  to  purpose  to  serve  God,  or  to  come  to  him,  or  to 
submit  to  him ;  because  these  acts  presuppose  faith,  and 
are  therefore  superseded  by  it.  "He  that  cometh  unto 
God  must  believe  that  he  is,"  &c.,  says  the  apostle.  But 
admit  that  there  are  successive  acts  and  various  degrees 
of  faith,  and  then  it  will  appear  sufficiently  plain  that  the 
sinner  may  have  more  or  less  faith,  and  yet  fall  short  of 
what  is  required  of  him  ;  and  that,  for  all  this  argument 
proves  to  the  contrary,  the  prayer  of  the  sinner  may  con- 
duce to  his  salvation. 

This  same  hostility  to  the  sinner's  praying  for  salvation 
is  strongly  expressed  in  a  pamphlet,  entitled  "  Narrative 
of  a  Revival  of  Religion  in  the  Third  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Baltimore.  With  Remarks  on  Subjects  connected  with 
Revivals  in  General.  By  W.  C.  Walton,  Pastor  of  said 
Church." 

He  remarks,  "  Sinners  are  indeed  often  told  they 
must  repent  or  perish ;  but  the  guilt  of  neglecting  to  do 
this  immediately  is  not  sufficiently  insisted  upon.  And 
when  they  are  awakened,  instead  of  having  tliis  duty  urged 
upon  them  with  all  the  force  of  divine  authority,  it  is  often 
taken  for  granted  that  they  are  already  penitent,  and  they 
are  pitied  and  prayed  for  as  mourners,  who  are  willing  to 
be  saved  if  God  will  only  convert  them ;  when  their  dis- 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  1^7 

tress  arises  from  nothing  but  the  fear  of  hell,  and  the 
struggling  of  a  rebellious  heart  against  the  duty  of  an  im- 
mediate submission  to  God,  on  the  terms  of  the  gospel. 
In  this  state  of  mind  the  direction  commonly  given  to 
them  is,  to  persevere  in  praying  and  using  the  means  of  grace. 
This  goes  upon  the  assumption  that  God  has  somewhere 
promised  to  meet  the  sinner  on  this  ground,  and  to  bless 
him  while  he  is  unwilling  to  submit,  and  renounce  his 
sins  ;  and  that  merely  because  he  is  externally  observing 
a  divine  institution.  Such  a  promise  it  would  be  difficult 
to  find.  To  persons  in  the  state  of  mind  here  supposed, 
the  word  of  God  contains  no  promise  of  good,  but  many 
denunciations  of  evil.  Evil  is  represented  as  '  pursuing' 
them.  '  Evil  pursueth  sinners,'  '  God  is  angry  with  the 
wicked  every  day.'  They  are  '  condemned  already,'  and 
can  never  know  at  one  moment  that  they  will  be  out  of 
hell  the  next.  If,  then,  God  has  given  them  no  promise 
of  good  while  they  remain  impenitent  rebels — and  such 
they  may  be  even  when  greatly  distressed  from  the  fear 
of  punishment — it  is  clear  that,  in  order  to  have  any  Scrip- 
tural groimd  to  hope  their  prayers  will  be  heard  and  ac- 
cepted, they  must,  in  the  first  place,  cease  from  their 
impenitence  and  rebellion,  by  a  cordial  and  unreserved 
submission  to  the  terms  of  the  gospel.  What  authority 
have  I  then  to  encourage  them  to  hope  that  they  will  re- 
ceive any  answer  to  their  impenitent  prayers  ?  Or  to  give 
them  any  direction,  the  tendency  of  which  would  be  to 
make  them  believe  that  they  are  in  the  way  to  obtain  re- 
ligion, when  they  do  not  desire  it,  and  are  unwilling  to 
have  it  on  the  only  terms  on  which  God  will  bestow  it  ?" 
The  reader  who  has  not  been  made  acquainted  with 
the  sophistries  of  modem  Calvinism  would  naturally  infer 
from  the  preceding  quotation,  that  some  preachers — and 
the  Methodists  are  evidently  intended — are  in  the  habit 
of  directing  "  impenitent  rebels,"  who  "  do  not  desire    re- 


108  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

ligion,  and  who  "  are  unwilling  to  have  it,"  except  on  their 
own  terms,  to  offer  up  "  impenitent  prayers"  for  religion, 
while  their  intention  is  not  to  submit,  but  to  live  in  sin, 
and  that  the  writer  was  merely  opposing  such  a  course. 
It  is  this  aspect  of  the  argument  which  gives  it  all  its 
plausibility.  There  may  possibly  be  such  teachers  in  ex- 
istence, but  we  know  not  where  they  are  to  be  found. 
This  is  certainly  not  the  practice  of  the  Methodists.  But 
a  little  attention  will  disclose  the  reason  of  their  imputing 
this  conduct  to  those  who  direct  the  sinner  to  "  call  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord"  that  he  may  "  be  saved."  They  pro- 
ceed on  the  supposition  that  one  single  voluntary  act  of 
the  mind  changes  a  man  in  one  moment  from  an  impeni- 
tent rebel  to  a  Christian — that  the  very  first  act  of  peni- 
tence, or  faith,  or  submission  in  any  form,  is  sufficient — 
that  if  a  man  is  not  a  Christian,  and  in  possession  of  sal- 
vation, it  is  because  he  is  wholly  impenitent,  and  dofes  not 
even  desire  religion.  Of  course,  in  their  view,  to  direct 
any  man  to  pray  for  salvation,  or  in  order  to  become  a 
Christian,  is  to  direct  an  impenitent  rebel  to  pray ;  for 
there  is  no  medium  between  total  impenitence  and  holi- 
ness. If  he  has  the  least  degree  of  penitence  he  has  no 
need  to  pray  for  salvation.  This  is  the  principle  on  which 
the  writer  argues.  It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  repeat 
our  views  on  this  subject.  We  go  on  the  ground  that 
there  are  successive  acts,  and  various  degrees  of  repent- 
ance and  faith — that  prayer  belongs  to  repentance  as  one 
of  its  acts,  and  that  the  man  who  refuses  to  pray  for  sal- 
vation, refuses  to  repent  fully  and  eftectually.  We  no 
more  encourage  sinners  to  pray  insincerely,  than  to  feign 
repentance. 

This  writer  adds,  "The  error  I  am  now  combating 
seems  to  arise  from  the  erroneous  supposition,  that  when 
the  sinner  is  awakened,  and  begins  to  refonn  his  external 
conduct,  and  to  use  the  means  of  grace,  his  heart  is  grow- 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  199 

ing  better  in  the  sight  of  God ;  that  he  is  becoming  less 
and  less  unworthy;  and  that  by  this  gradual  diminution  of 
his  unworthiness,  he  is  making  a  gradual  approximation 
to  a  right  state  of  feeling.  Hence  the  direction,  '  Continue 
praying — persevere — you  are  in  a  hopeful  way — after 
awhile  you  will  obtain  religion,' "  &c. 

It  will  be  perceived  at  once  that  this  is  aimed  at 
Methodism.  While  it  discloses  to  us  the  author's  senti- 
ments, it  affords  us  an  opportunity  of  replying  to  his  impu 
tations.  The  sinner  is  not  urged  to  pray,  and  persevere, 
and  told  that  he  is  in  a  hopeful  way,  on  the  supposition 
that  he  is  making  himself  loorthy  of  the  blessing  he  seeks. 
But  it  is  supposed  that  he  is  making  advancement  toward 
that  state  of  feeling  which  God  requires,  or  the  direction 
would  not  be  given.  It  is  supposed  that  the  use  of  those 
means  contributes  to  that  degree  of  penitence  and  faith, 
in  connection  with  which,  God  has  placed  the  blessings 
of  pardon  and  spiritual  renovation.  And  surely  the  heart 
that  is  in  some  degree  penitent,  and  whose  penitence  is 
increasing,  is  not  in  a  worse  condition  than  that  which  is 
wholly  impenitent.  Shall  we  suppose  that  the  atheist 
grows  worse  and  worse,  as  he  is  led  successively  to  be- 
lieve in  a  God,  and  in  all  the  articles  which  compose  the 
Christian  faith  ?  The  fact  that  God  has  promised  salva- 
tion to  those  Avho  are  in  a  certain  state  of  mind,  proves 
that  their  case  becomes  more  hopeful  as  they  approximate 
to  that  state  of  mind.  The  doctrine  of  New  Divinity  is, 
that  every  effort  that  a  man  makes  to  obtain  religion  makes 
him  worse  and  worse,  drives  him  further  and  further 
away  from  God,  until  all  at  once,  without  a  single  prepa- 
ratory step,  he  turns  round,  quick  as  thought,  and  makes 
himself  a  Christian,  which  he  could  as  easily  have  done 
at  any  other  period.  We  leave  it  Avith  the  reader  to  decide 
which  of  these  views  is  most  compatible  with  Scripture 
and  reason. 


aOD  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

JNIr.  Hinton,  in  his  work  entitled  "  The  Active  Christian," 
a  book  containing  many  excellences  as  well  as  errors, 
says  in  describing  "  cases  of  ill-directed  eilbrt"  on  the 
part  of  awakened  sinners,  "  Now  none  of  these  pleasing 
appearances  exercise  a  more  delusive  influence  than 
prayer.  To  a  very  great  extent  a  notion  prevails,  that 
sinners  may  be  saved  by  prayer,  and  there  is  something 
so  excellent  in  prayer  itself,  and,  considered  as  a  spiritual 
exercise,  so  much  identified  with  the  existence  of  sincere 
piety,  that  many  persons  have  either  imbibed  the  senti- 
ment, or  a.re  startled  with  the  opposite.  To  me  it  appears 
one  of  the  simplest  and  most  obvious  truths,  that  no  man 
can  he  saved  hy  prayer.  If  it  be  a  spiritual  exercise  (which 
is  far  from  being  always  the  case)  it  may  be  like  holiness, 
an  evidence  of  salvation,  hut  not  the  instrument  of  it.  It 
is  not  that  which  a  sinner  is  to  do  in  order  to  he  saved,  or 
that  hy  lohich  he  can  be  saved.  It  does  nothing  toward  his 
salvation,  hut  leaves  the  question  of  acceptance  or  ivrath  just 
where  it  was.  Now,  if  prayer  might  always  be  taken  as 
an  evidence  of  piety,  it  would  be  an  unscriptural  and  mis- 
chievous thing  to  confomid  the  evidences  with  the  method 
of  salvation.  But,  as  I  have  just  hinted,  prayer  is  by 
no  means  imiformly  a  spiritual  exercise.  Much  of  it  is 
formal,  and  much  that  is  not  formal  is  natural — the  utter- 
ance of  an  awakened  but  not  of  a  subdued  heart.  This  is 
even  no  evidence  of  piety;  and  yet  it  is  the  prayer  by 
which  multitudes  hope  to  be  saved.  It  is  not  only  a 
truth,  therefore,  but  a  very  important  truth,  that  a  sinner 
cannot  be  saved  by  prayer ;  that  if  prayer  be  miaccom- 
panied  with  submission  to  God,  it  leaves  him  under  con- 
demnation ;  that  if  it  be  accompanied  with  submission  to 
God,  it  is  not  prayer  that  saves  him,  but  submission  ;  and 
that  reliance  placed  on  prayer  serves  only  to  blind  him  to 
his  condition,  and  to  render  prayer  itself  the  instrument 
of  his  ruin. 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  201 

"  It  is  the  more  material  that  prayer  should  be  set  in  its 
true  light,  because  by  many  persons  it  is  regarded,  not 
merely  as  that  which  will  save  them,  but  as  the  only  thing 
which  is  requisite  or  possible  for  them  to  do  in  reference 
to  their  salvation.  '  If  prayer  does  not  answer  the  end,' 
they  are  ready  to  say,  '  What  can  we  do  more  ?'  And  as 
it  uniformly  happens  that  prayer  does  not  answer  an  end 
for  which  it  is  unscripturally  and  inappropriately  used,  it 
hence  follows  that  they  conclude  they  have  nothing  else 
to  do,  and  make  themselves  satisfied  in  a  state  of  sin  and 
condemnation ;  as  though  they  would  say,  '  I  have  prayed 
to  God,  and  that  is  every  thing ;  and  now  if  I  am  not  con- 
verted and  saved  it  is  not  my  fault.'  It  is  evident  that  in 
such  a  state  of  mind,  the  attention  of  the  sinner  is  with- 
drawn from  all  Scriptural  views  of  duty,  and  from  every 
impulse  to  right  action.  The  Scripture  speaks  of  humbling 
ourselves  before  God,  of  repentance,  of  godly  sorrow,  of 
submission  to  Christ's  righteousness,  all  of  which  are  thus 
most  unjustly  and  injuriously  superseded  by  prayer,  an 
exercise  by  the  performance  of  which,  in  whatever  man- 
ner, a  sinner  deems  himself  exonerated  from  all  obligation 
to  these  Scriptural  and  essential  duties.  Instead  of  being 
useful,  the  very  exercise  of  prayer  becomes  in  this  method 
a  tremendous  mischief.  I  do  not  need  here  to  be  told  of 
the  fallen  and  helpless  state  of  human  nature,  or  of  the 
thousand  encouragements  to  prayer  which  are  contained 
in  the  divine  word.  Admitting  these  most  readily,  I  must 
maintain  also  that  it  is  a  sinner's  direct  and  immediate  duty 
to  turn  to  God,  and  submit  to  his  Son,  a  duty  from  the  obli- 
gation and  necessity  of  which  a  whole  century  of  prayer 
coidd  not  relieve  him.  Make  it  your  business,  dear 
brethren,  to  see  that  no  person  under  your  instruction 
shall  ruin  himself  by  this  melancholy  delusion." 

This  author  finds  it  necessary,  like  all  the  rest  of  his 
school,  to  caricature  the  doctrine  he  opposes,  in  order  to 
9* 


202  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

the  success  of  his  opposition.  "  To  a  very  great  extent," 
he  says,  "  the  notion  prevails  that  a  sinner  may  be  saved 
hy  prayer."  "  By  many  persons  it  is  regarded,  not  merely 
as  that  which  will  save  them,  but  as  the  only  thing  which 
it  is  either  requisite  or  possible  for  them  to  do  in  reference 
to  their  salvation."  They  think  that  by  the  performance 
of  this  exercise,  in  any  manner,  a  sinner  is  "  exonerated 
from  all  obligation"  to  the  "  Scriptural  and  essential  duties 
of  humbling  himself  before  God,  of  repentance,  of  godly 
sorrow,  of  submission  to  Christ's  righteousness."  It  can 
hardly  be  necessary  to  deny  that  those  who  direct  the 
sinner  to  pray  for  mercy,  entertain  such  views  of  prayer. 
They  look  upon  prayer  as  one  of  those  exercises  which 
'God  has  enjoined  on  the  sinner  as  the  means  of  obtain- 
ing salvation,  and  suppose  that  the  neglect  of  it  will  be 
equally  fatal  with  the  neglect  of  any  other  duty. 

We  readily  grant  that  the  sinner  may  entertain  mistaken 
views  of  the  nature  and  efficacy  of  prayer.  In  such  a 
case  it  will  be  important  that  his  views  be  corrected.  But 
the  liability  to  delusion  respecting  prayer,  is  no  greater 
than  the  liability  to  delusion  respecting  any  other  exercise. 
A  man  may  as  easily  suppose  "  worldly  sorrow"  to  be 
"  godly  sorrow."  He  may  as  easily  suppose  that  to  be  re- 
pentance which  is  not  repentance.  But  the  author  is  not 
so  much  concerned  to  correct  the  manner  of  the  sinner's 
praying.  It  is  prayer  itself,  on  the  part  of  an  awakened 
sinner,  as  a  means  of  grace,  that  he  is  opposing.  "  It  is 
not  that  which  a  sinner  is  to  do  in  order  to  be  saved."  "  It 
does  nothing  toward  his  salvation."  "  It  may  be,  like  holi- 
ness, an  evidence  of  salvation,  but  not  the  instriwient  of  it." 
"  If  prayer  be  unaccompanied  by  submission  to  God,  it 
leaves  him  under  condemnation ;  if  it  be  accompanied 
with  submission  to  God,  it  is  not"  prayer  that  saves  him, 
but  submission."  So  that  prayer  is  wholly  unnecessary. 
Indeed  we  are  told  "  that  reliance  placed  upon  prayer 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  203 

serves  only  to  blind  him  to  his  condition,  and  to  render 
prayer  itself  the  instrument  of  his  ruin."  The  sinner  may 
fall  into  other  mistakes,  but  "  none  of  these  pleasing  ap- 
pearances exercise  a  more  plausible  and  delusive  influ- 
ence than  that  of  prayer." 

As  to  prayer  superseding  other  duties,  it  may  as  well 
be  pretended  that  godly  sorrow  supersedes  repentance,  or 
repentance  faith,  or  faith  "  submission."  But  what  is  the 
"  submission"  to  which  such  all-absorbing  importance  is 
attached  ?  The  author  seems  to  speak  of  it  as  a  separate 
exercise.  But  in  what  part  of  the  word  of  God  is  sub- 
mission enjoined  as  a  particular  exercise  1  Where  is  it 
said,  "  He  that  submits  shall  be  saved  V  Prayer  is  dis- 
tinctly specified  as  the  sinner's  duty:  "  Seek  ye  the  Lord 
while  he-  may  be  founds  call  upon  him  while  he  is  near." 
That  submission  is  necessary  is  not  questioned.  No  man 
can  be  saved  until  he  submits.  But  does  one  particular 
exercise  constitute  submission,  or  does  it  include  a  varie- 
ty of  exercises  ?  New  Divinity  delights  in  vague  and 
ambiguous  terms.  The  sinner  inquires  what  he  shall  do 
to  be  saved.  These  teachers  tell  him  to  submit.  This 
he  professes  a  willingness  to  do,  but  wants  to  know 
what  it  is  to  submit.  He  is  told  that  to  submit  is  to  do 
what  God  requires  of  him.  "  But  what  does  God  require 
of  me  ?"  is  the  natural  response  to  such  sage  instruction : 
"  Must  I  pray  to  him  ?  What  must  I  do  ?"  "  No,  you 
must  not  pray,  you  must  submit  to  God."  How  very 
luminous  !  And  so  simple  too !  !  There  surely  can  be 
no  great  danger  of  delusion  here ! ! !  Nov/  those  who  direct 
the  sinner  to  ■pray,  enjoin  submission  just  as  much  as  the 
advocates  of  New  Divinity.  They  hold  that  submission 
includes  a  variety  of  exercises,  and  that  prayer  is  one  of 
them — and  one  of  leading  importance.  They  therefore 
enjoin  it  as  an  essential  part  of  submission.  There  may 
be  prayer  without  entire  submission,  but  there  cannot  be 


204  NEW  DIVINITY — PRAYER. 

entire  submission  without  prayer.  The  New  School  di- 
vines leave  out  of  their  doctrine  of  submission,  duties 
which  God  has  peremptorily  commanded.  God  has  en- 
joined prayer,  but  they  forbid  it,  and  enjoin  submission. 
What  is  this  but  substituting  rebellion  for  submission? 
The  submission  which  they  enjoin  is  downright  rebellion. 
It  may  be  submission  to  Messrs.  Finney,  Duffield,  Hin- 
ton,  or  to  other  New  Divinity  teachers  ;  but  it  is  not  sub- 
mission to  God.  The  truth  is,  that  prayer,  so  far  from 
superseding  other  duties,  is  directly  promotive  of  them — 
while  the  sinner  who  does  not  pray  will  not  humble  him- 
self, will  not  repent,  will  not  believe,  will  not  be  saved. 
JMr.  H.  intimates  that  prayer  does  not  answer  the  end 
for  which  it  is  used  by  those  Avho  resort  to  it  as  a  means 
of  obtaining  mercy  and  salvation.  Will  Methodists  believe 
this  ?  O,  how  many  thousand  tongues  are  ready  to  con- 
tradict the  assertion ! 


CHAPTER   XIX. 

PRAYER     CONTINUED. 

It  will  be  perceived,  from  the  extracts  quoted  and  com- 
mented upon  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  while  the  ad- 
vocates of  New  School  theology  condemn  every  act  as 
unnecessary  or  rebellious — as  "  resisting  the  last  hope  of 
a  lost  soul" — which  falls  short  of  the  one  single  act  that 
regtmerates,  they  have  a  special  antipathy  to  prayer  for 
pardon  and  regeneration.  The  question  before  us  is  one 
of  immense  importance.  If  the  doctrine  of  our  oppo- 
nents be  true,  then  do  the  Methodists,  with  one  voice,  en- 
join on  all  who  inquire  the  way  of  salvation,  an  exercise 
which  is  not  oiUy  unnecessary,  but  highly  prejudicial  to 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  205 

their  spiritual  interests.  It  may  be  supposed  by  some  of 
our  readers  that  the  examples  which  we  have  presented 
to  prove  that  this  doctrine  is  held  and  taught  by  those  to 
whom  we  impute  it,  are  sufficiently  pointed  and  numerous ; 
but  we  beg  leave  to  call  their  attention  to  one  more  writer 
on  this  subject,  the  Rev.  Charles  Fitch.  We  have  before 
us  a  book  entitled  "  Inquirer's  Guide,"  published  by  Mr. 
Fitch,  while  pastor  of  the  "Free  Congregational  Church," 
in  Hartford,  to  which  our  attention  was  recently  directed 
by  a  member  of  the  NcAv-York  Conference,  who  had  met 
with  it  in  his  pastoral  visitations.  It  is  designed  for  in- 
quirers particularly,  as  the  title  indicates.  We  hesitate 
not  to  affirm  that  it  contains  spiritual  poison — rank  and 
deadly.  We  would  warn  all  inquirers,  within  the  circle 
of  our  influence,  against  trusting  themselves  to  its  delusive 
guidance. 

The  book  professes  to  illustrate  truth  by  facts,  and  con- 
tains several  narratives,  in  which  its  doctrinal  peculiarities 
are  exhibited.  One  of  them  introduces  two  cousins,  Mary 
and  Juliet,  as  the  leading  personages  in  the  history.  They 
were  returning  from  prayer-meeting  together.  "  '  We 
will  not  go  to  sleep  to  night,'  said  Mary  to  Juliet,  as  they 
were  returning  from  the  prayer-meeting,  '  until  we  have 
given  our  hearts  to  God.'  They  reached  home,  and  re- 
tired immediately  to  their  room,  to  fulfil  their  resolutions. 
After  praying  alternately  for  some  hours,  they  called  the 
lady  of  the  house  from  her  bed,  and  requested  her  to  go 
to  their  room.  She  did  so,  and  then  asked  what  was  their 
wish.  '  That  you  will  pray  for  us,'  was  the  reply.  'And 
for  what  shall  I  pray,'  asked  the  lady.  '  O  !'  said  they, 
'  that  we  may  have  new  hearts.'  She  complied  with  their 
request ;  and  on  retiring  from  the  room,  she  heard  one 
of  them  say,  '  How  shall  we  know  that  we  have  new 
hearts  V  '  We  will  pray,'  said  the  other,  '  until  we  do 
know.'      Thus    they  continued   praying   until   they  felt 


206  NEW  DIVINITY — PRAYER. 

within  them  they  had  given  their  hearts  to  God,  and  were 
ready  to  devote  their  lives  to  his  service." 

The  author  of  the  book  does  not  question  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  change  which  took  place  in  these  persons. 
"  There  are  few,"  he  says,  "  whose  piety  has  been  more 
consistent  than  that  of  Mary  and  Juliet."  But  he  objects 
to  the  course  they  pursued,  and  in  stating  his  objection  he 
developes  the  pernicious  tendencies  of  his  theory. 

He  says,  "  In  the  resolution  formed  by  Mary  and  Juliet, 
they  did  wrong  in  but  one  thing.  Instead  of  saying,  We 
will  give  our  hearts  to  God  before  we  sleep,  and  then 
waiting  until  they  could  go  home  to  their  chamber  to  do  it, 
they  should  have  said.  We  ivill  now — we  do  now  give  our 
hearts  to  God,  where  we  are — before  we  take  another 
step — before  we  draw  another  breath.  From  this  instant, 
and  for  evermore,  we  will  love  God  and  him  only,  and 
serve  him  with  all  our  powers  until  we  die  ;  trusting  in 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  our  multiplied  sins  will  be  for- 
given through  the  merits  of  his  atoning  blood.  They  had 
no  means  of  knowing  that  God  would  let  them  live  until 
they  could  go  home  to  their  chamber  ;  they  were  presum- 
ing on  a  time  to  make  their  preparation,  which  might 
never  come.  Instead  of  withholding  their  hearts  from 
God  so  long,  and  spending  these  hours  in  praying  for  them- 
selves, they  should  have  yielded  at  once,  and  gone  home 
to  pray  for  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  poured  out  upon  their 
young  companions,  who  were  yet  living  in  sin.  They 
might  have  come  to  the  full,  unreserved,  and  heartfelt 
resolution  to  love  God  and  obey  him  for  ever,  at  any  pre- 
vious moment,  just  as  well  as  Avhen  they  actually  did.  It 
was  not  7iccessary  for  them  to  offer  all  these  prayers  to  pre- 
vail with  God  and  make  him  willing  that  they  should  have 
new  hearts.  God  was  more  than  willing ;  he  was  strongly 
desirous  that  they  should  have  new  hearts,  before  one  of 
those  prayers  had  been  offered  ;  and  the  only  thing  to  be 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  207 

done  by  them  toward  obtaining  new  hearts,  was  just  to 
consent  sincerely  and  heartily,  to  love  God  and  obey  him 
All  this  they  had  to  do,  after  all  their  prayers." 

"  If  Mary  and  Juliet  had  not  done  this — if  they  had  not 
fully  determined  that  they  would  for  ever  love  and  serve 
their  Maker  with  all  their  powers,  they  might  have  prayed 
until  now,  and  they  would  have  been  impenitent  sinners 
still,  and  on  the  road  to  death.  Their  resolution  that  they 
would,  on  that  night,  give  themselves  to  God,  was  a  good 
one,  except  that  they  ought  to  have  resolved  on  doing  it 
much  sooner,  and  ought  to  have  given  their  all  away  to 
Christ,  as  they  were  walking  by  the  way,  and  thus  have 
gone  home  his  true  disciples.  They  might  have  done  it, 
and  were  exceedingly  guilty  for  not  doing  it :  and  if  God 
had  cut  them  off  in  sin,  while  on  their  way  to  their  dwell 
ing,  and  consigned  them  to  eternal  death,  it  would  have 
been  altogether  righteous." — p.  58. 

In  these  quotations  we  have  (clearly  presented)  the  fol- 
lowing doctrines  :  1st,  That  the  prayers  of  these  cousins, 
for  new  hearts,  were  wholly  unnecessary.  2dly,  That 
whatever  may  be  included  in  giving  the  heart  to  God  and 
becoming  Christians,  may  be  done  in  one  moment — "  be- 
fore we  draw  another  breath" — ^"  before  we  take  another 
step."  3dly,  That  while  "  the  cousins"  were  praying  for 
new  hearts,  they  were  "  impenitent  sinners  still,  and  on  the 
road  to  death."  4thly,  That  to  "  come  to  the  full,  unre- 
served, and  heartfelt  resolution  to  love  God  and  obey  him 
for  ever,"  or  ^^just  to  consent  sincerely  and  heartily  to  love 
God  and  obey  him,"  or  to  "  fully  deter?nine  that  they  will 
for  ever  love  and  serve  their  Maker  with  all  their  powers," 
which  may  be  done  by  "  impenitent  sinners"  in  a  moment, 
is  "  the  only  thing  to  be  done  by  them  toward  obtaining 
new  hearts." 

Is  it  not  clear  that  if,  at  the  first,  Mary  and  Juliet  had 
concluded  that  their  hearts  were  already  given  to  God,  by 


208  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

the  resolution  they  had  formed  ;  and,  omitting  the  hateful 
business  of  praying  for  new  hearts,  had  "  indulged  a  hope," 
and  prayed  for  their  young  companions,  they  would  have 
escaped  Mr.  F.'s  censures,  and  all  would  have  been  right. 

Mr.  F.  does  not,  however,  "  put  forth  half  his  strength" 
against  prayer  in  this  part  of  his  book,  but  "  checks  his 
thunder  in  mid-volley."  In  a  second  narrative,  entitled 
"  God  is  willing  that  Sinners  should  be  Saved,"  he  comes 
out  as  follows  : — "  E.  P.  was  hopefully  converted  under 
the  following  circumstances :  A  protracted  meeting  was 
in  progress,  and  his  attention  was  called  to  his  eternal 
well-being — but  he  had  not  yielded  his  heart  to  God.  At 
■  this  time  a  sermon  was  preached  from  the  following  text : 
i  Whoso  turneth  away  his  ear  from  hearing  the  law,  even 
his  prayer  shall  be  an  abomination.'  It  was  remarked  by 
the  preacher  that  '  there  was  nothing  upon  which  anxious 
sinners  usually  placed  more  value  than  upon  their  prayers 
— thinking  that  by  these  they  should  prevail  Avith  God  to 
have  mercy  on  them,  and  thus  secure  salvation  !'  It  was 
also  said,  '  that  these  impenitent  prayers  were  frequently 
the  last  thing  which  the  impenitent  were  Aviliing  to  give 
up,  before  they  left  all,  and  trusted  in  Christ.'  It  was 
stated  that  there  was  '  no  necessity  for  impeiiitent  sinners  to 
pray  that  God  would  have  mercy  on  thc?n,^  and  that  '  such 
prayers  were  an  abomination,  Avhen  they  were  ofi'ered.' 
These  two  points  were  made  to  appear  by  the  following 
illustration  :  '  A  thief  is  arraigned  at  the  bar  of  his  coun- 
try, and  condemned  to  state's  prison  for  life.  After  his 
sentence  he  sends  up  a  petition  to  the  legislature  for  a 
pardon.  They  consider  his  case,  and  resolve  that  if  the 
man  will  acknowledge  his  crime,  and  pledge  himself  to 
render  obedience  to  the  laws  of  his  country  in  future,  he 
shall  be  set  at  liberty. 

"  This  decision  is  made  known  to  the  man,  but  he  at 
once  replies,  '  I  shall  do  no  such  thing  as  they  say,  I  do 


NEW  DIVINITY — PRAYER.  309 

not  ask  for  conditional  pardon.  I  wish  to  be  set  at  liberty, 
and  left  free  in  future  to  steal  or  not,  as  I  choose.'  He 
sends  this  answer  to  the  legislature,  and  accompanies  it 
with  another  earnest  prayer  for  pardon.  But  the  legisla- 
ture, so  soon  as  his  petition  is  read,  reply  with  one  voice. 
We  can  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  that  man's  case. 
We  have  disposed  of  it.  We  have  once  decided,  that  if 
he  will  acknowledge  his  crime,  and  pledge  himself  to 
obey  the  law,  he  is  pardoned.  We  have  no  more  to  do 
with  his  case.'  But  the  man  still  refuses  to  comply  with 
the  conditions  ;  and  again,  Avith  more  earnestness  than 
before,  sends  up  a  prayer  for  pardon.  He  repeats  it  time 
after  time.  He  becomes  apparently  very  much  distressed. 
He  portrays  before  them  the  horrors  of  a  prison,  and  tells 
them  how;  much  he  suffers  at  the  thought  of  running  out 
his  whole  life  within  the  gloomy  walls  of  a  dungeon  ;  but 
in  the  midst  of  all  his  distress,  he  absolutely  refuses  either 
to  confess  his  crime,  or  to  give  the  pledge  of  future  obe- 
dience to  the  law. 

"Now  it  will  be  seen  that  this  man's  petitions  are  clearly 
useless.  There  is  no  necessity  for  them.  The  legisla- 
ture have  already  resolved  that  they  will  pardon  him,  on 
the  only  conditions  which  can  be  consistent  with  the  rights 
of  the  community ;  what  need  is  there  then  of  his  pray- 
ing ?  It  is  evident  the  only  object  of  his  prayers  must  be 
to  induce  the  legislature  to  alter  the  conditions  on  which 
they  have  agreed  to  pardon  him. 

"  But  can  they  do  this  ?  Can  they  consistently  set  him 
at  liberty,  with  fuU  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  he  intends 
to  steal  whenever  he  may  choose  ?  Will  not  his  prayers 
in  such  a  case  be  most  clearly  an  abomination  ?  The 
legislature  would  soon  become  weary  of  them,  and  proba- 
bly refuse  to  hear  them.  That  man  turns  away  his  ear 
from  hearing  the  law.  There  is  no  necessity  that  he 
should  continue  to  ask  for  mercy.     The  pardon  has  been 


210  NEW   DIVINITY PRAYER. 

presented,  and  now,  if  he  will  comply  with  the  terms, 
which  all  must  see  are  reasonable,  he  can  have  his  liberty. 
Just  as  long  as  he  continues  to  pray,  he  will  be  more  and 
more  an  abomination. 

"  '  Precisely  such,'  it  was  stated,  '  is  the  case  of  the 
sinner  toward  God.  God  has  already  said  in  his  word, 
'  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  imrighteous 
man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him  turn  unto  the  Lord,  and  he 
will  have  mercy  on  him,  and  to  our  God,  who  will  abun- 
dantly pardon.'  It  is  also  said,  '  Whoso  covereth  his  sins 
shall  not  prosper ;  but  he  that  confesseth  and  forsaketh, 
shall  have  mercy.' 

"  '  But  so  soon  as  the  sinner  sees  that  he  is  in  danger  of 
sinking  to  hell,  he  begins  to  cry  out  for  mercy.  What 
need  of  this  ?  God  has  said,  beforehand,  '  He  that  confess- 
eth and  forsaketh  his  sins,  shall  have  mercy.''  Why  does 
he  -pray  ?  Does  he  expect  God  will  have  mercy  on  him 
while  he  does  not  confess  and  forsake  his  sins  ?  He  may 
pray  as  long  as  the  rich  man  did  for  water,  and  he  will 
be  sure  to  obtain  nothing.  He  might  offer  such  prayers 
as  these  to  all  eternity,  and  God  would  never  hear.  Why 
does  he  not  confess  and  forsake  his  sins,  and  then  he 
would  be  sure  of  mercy — sure  of  free  forgiveness  and  ever- 
lasting life. 

" '  But  he  becomes  very  much  distressed.  He  sheds 
burning  tears  as  he  looks  into  hell,  and  rolls  upon  his  pil- 
low at  night,  as  sleep  departs  from  his  eyelids,  and  begs 
of  God  to  save  his  perishing  soul.  He  spends  whole  days 
thus,  and  perhaps  flatters  himself,  that  the  more  he  prays, 
the  more  likely  he  will  be  to  obtain  salvation.  Still,  how 
ever,  while  he  keeps  on  praying,  he  altogether  refuses  to 
confess  and  forsake  his  sins.  Must  not  such  prayers  be 
an  abomination  ?  God  has  told  him  already  that  he  is  wil- 
ling to  have  mercy  on  him.  There  isy  therefore,  no  need  to 
pray  for  it. 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  211 

"  '  The  sinner  turns  away  his  ear  from  hearing  the  law. 
He  will  not  obey  in  the  thing  which  God  requires,  though 
he  prays  with  great  earnestness,  and  thinks  to  prevail. 
God  will  let  him  pray  eternally,  but  will  curse  his  soul 
for  every  prayer  he  offers,  until  he  wUl  do  the  thing  re- 
quired of  him — that  is,  confess  and  forsake  his  sins. 

'"The  longer  he  prays  thus,  the  more  abominable  must 
he  become  in  God's  sight.  He  is  merely  begging  of  God 
to  forgive  him,  and  take  him  to  heaven,  while  he  continues 
to  be  a  rebel.  Let  him  leave  off  Ms  ungodly  prayers,  and 
do  the  thing  which  God  requires  of  him,  and  then  his  soul 
will  be  saved.  After  this  he  may  pray,  and  God  will  hear 
him ;  but  God  hears  no  man's  prayers  who  will  not  con- 
fess and  forsake  his  sins.'  " 

"  E.  P.  felt  the  force  of  this  truth.  He  felt  willing  to 
give  up  his  sins,  and  consecrate  himself  to  the  service  of 
God  ;  and  in  doing  this  he  found  peace. 

"  Sinners  should  be  directed  to  do  what  God  has  made 
necessary  to  salvation.  It  is  nowhere  said  in  the  Bible, 
that  if  the  impenitent  sinner  will  pray,  he  shall  be  saved : 
nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  God  places  any  value  upon 
his  prayers,  when  they  are  offered. 

"  The  first  thing  which  sinners  have  to  do,  is  to  repent 
— ^that  is,  confess  and  forsake  their  sins,  and  every  thing 
is  an  abomination  until  this  is  done.  This  they  will  never 
do  while  they  think  any  thing  else  will  answer  in  its 
place.  They  cannot,  therefore,  too  soon  be  made  to  feel 
that  all  their  prayers  and  tears,  and  eternal  reformations, 
are  wholly  useless,  until  they  will  acknowledge  their 
transgressions  to  God,  and  enter  at  once  upon  the  full 
discharge  of  all  the  duties  wiiich  he  requires.  To  tell  the 
sinner  to  pray,  when  God  has  commanded  him  '  to  repent 
and  turn  himself  from  all  his  transgressions,'  is  to  handle 
the  word  of  God  deceitfully,  and  daub  with  untempered 
mortar." — p.  98. 


212  NEW  DIVINITY — PRAYER. 

The  reader  will  keep  in  mind  the  object  for  which  w? 
make  these  quotations.  They  are  intended  to  show  that 
the  inference  which  we  have  deduced  from  other  parts  of 
the  NeAv  School  theory,  namely,  that  for  the  sinner  to  pray 
for  forgiveness  and  regeneration  is  unnecessary  and  rebel- 
lious, is  recognised,  and  held  and  taught  as  a  doctrine,  by 
the  advocates  of  that  theory.  Additional  testimony  is  unne- 
cessary. This  point  is  abundantly  substantiated.  Indeed, 
we  would  have  satisfied  ourselves  with  much  less  exten- 
sive extracts,  were  we  not  apprehensive  that  the  charity 
of  many  would  render  them  reluctant  to  believe  that  a 
doctrine,  penetrating  so  far  into  the  regions  of  destructive 
error,  could  be  held  by  persons  maintaining  such  a  show 
of  zeal  and  spirituality,  as  must  be  placed  to  the  credit  of 
many  New  School  churches. 

The  fallacy  of  this  author's  reasoning  is  easily  de- 
tected. He  opposes  prayer  for  salvation,  on  the  part 
of  the  unconverted,  on  the  ground,  first,  that  they  are  im- 
penitent ;  secondly,  that  they  are  unnecessary.  The 
case  of  the  sinner  who  prays  for  pardon  is  "  precisely 
similar,"  in  his  estimation,  to  that  of  the  thief,  who 
sends  his  petition  to  the  legislature  for  a  pardon,  and 
who,  when  informed  that  the  legislature  have  resolved  to 
pardon  him  on  the  condition  that  he  will  acknowledge  his 
crime,  and  promise  future  obedience  to  the  laws,  replies 
that  he  "  shall  do  no  such  thing" — ^he  does  "  not  ask  for  a 
conditional  pardon" — he  wishes  "  to  be  set  at  liberty,  and 
left  free  in  future,  to  steal  or  not,  as  he  shall  choose" — 
and  who  sends  this  answer  to  the  legislature,  accom- 
panied with  another  petition  for  pardon. 

Now  we  honestly  declare  that  in  all  our  experience  we 
never  met  with  a  case  like  this.  During  a  ministry  of 
several  years,  we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  urging  sirmers 
to  pray  for  mercy,  and  have  seen  many  kneel  down  before 
God  for  that  purpose ;  resume  their  posture  of  supplica- 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  213 

tion  from  time  to  time  ;  rise  from  their  knees  assm'ed  that 
the  anger  of  God  was  turned  away  ;  and  rejoice  in  the 
hope  of  the  glory  of  God.  We  have  seen  the  genuineness 
of  their  conversion  attested  by  holy  lives  and  triumphant 
deaths.  But  had  we  met  with  any  of  those  presumptuous 
rebels,  described  by  Mr.  F.,  instead  of  encouraging  them 
to  expect  pardon  in  answer  to  their  insulting  petitions,  we 
should  have  feared  that  God  would  strike  them  dead,  and 
send  them  to  hell  instantly.  We  would  have  endeavoured 
to  arouse  them  to  a  sense  of  their  danger,  by  such  lan- 
guage as  this  : — "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers, 
how  shall  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell!" 

Mr.  F.  is  not  guided  in  his  estimate  of  the  charac- 
ter of  those  who  pray  for  pardon  and  regeneration,  by  the 
facts  of  the  case,  but  by  his  misleading  theory.  He  as- 
sumes that  the  very  first  act  which  is  in  the  least  degree 
conformed  to  the  will  of  God — the  first  act,  or  degree,  of 
repentance  or  faith — is  sufficient  to  secure  pardon  ;  and 
then  very  consistently  infers  that  the  sinner  who  prays 
for  pardon  obstinately  refuses  to  perform  that  act,  and  is 
therefore  wholly  impenitent.  If  he  would  only  perform 
that  act,  his  prayer  would  be  unnecessary.  "  God  has 
told  him  already,  that  he  is  willing  to  have  mercy  on  him. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  need  to  pray  for  it."  By  this  theory 
would  Mr.  F.,  and  the  advocates  of  New  Divinity  general- 
ly, undertake  to  explain  all  those  cases  of  deep  and 
agonizing  repentance  which  have  not  yet  resulted  in  ac- 
tual and  ascertained  forgiveness.  "  The  sinner  sees  that 
he  is  in  danger  of  sinking  into  hell,"  and  "  begins  to  cry 
out  for  mercy,"  while  he  wilfully  refuses  to  perform  that 
one  act  which  God  requires  of  him,  and  which  he  can 
perform  before  he  "  draws  another  breath."  "  He  becomes 
very  much  distressed.  He  sheds  burning  tears  as  he  looks 
into  hell,  and  rolls  upon  his  pillow  at  night,  as  sleep 
departs  from  his  eyelids,  and  begs  God  to  save  his  perish- 


214  NEW  DIVINITY — PRAYER. 

ing  soul.  He  spends  whole  days  thus,  and  perhaps  flat- 
ters himself  that  the  more  he  prays,  the  more  likely  he 
will  be  to  obtain  salvation.  Still,  however,  while  he 
keeps  on  praying,  he  altogether  refuses"  to  do  that  one 
single  act  which  is  required  of  him.  Hence,  of  course, 
his  prayers  are  "  an  abomination."  "  The  longer  he  prays 
thus,  the  more  abominable  he  must  become  in  God's  sight. 
He  is  merely  begging  of  God  to  forgive  him  and  take  him 
to  heaven  while  he  continues  to  be  a  rebel.  Let  him  leave 
off  his  ungodly  prayers,"  and  do  the  thing  which  God  re- 
quires, and  his  soul  will  be  saved.  "  God  will  curse  him 
for  every  prayer  he  offers"  before  he  is  converted.  Let 
the  sinner,  then,  who  desires  salvation,  beware  how  he 
prays  for  it !  Whatever  else  he  may  do,  let  him  avoid 
prayer  as  he  would  avoid  cursing !  And  as  the  advocates 
of  this  theory  may  be  too  modest  or  too  charitable  to 
make  the  following  legitimate  application  of  it,  we  will 
make  it  for  them : — Let  the  sinner  who  desires  to  be 
saved,  shun  the  Methodist  Church  as  he  would  shun  the 
gates  of  hell ;  for  they  pursue,  throughout  the  whole  ex- 
tent of  it,  the  practice  of  directing  awakened  sinners  to 
pray  for  pardon  and  salvation,  and,  to  all  appearance,  are 
likely  to  be  incorrigible  in  the  'maintenance  of  their 
atrocious  system. 

It  is  remar"kable  that  the  teachers  of  New  Divinity,  in 
specifying  that  one  act  which  God  requires  of  the  sinner, 
vary  their  terms  as  the  argument  may  seem  to  require.  At 
one  time  they  speak  of  "faith"  as  the  thing  required — at 
another  time,  "  repentance"—  at  another,  "  willing,"  or 
"choosing,"  or  "  resolution*'  — at  another,  "  confession  of 
sin,"  or  "  forsaking  it."  This  is  the  way  with  Mr.  F. 
When  speaking  of  "  the  cousins,"  all  that  is  necessary  is 
to  come  to  the  "  resolution  to  love  God  and  obey  him 
for  evei."  In  the  case  of  the  thief,  that  which  is  neces- 
sary is  to  acknowledge  his  crime,  and  pledge  liimself  to 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  215 

obey  the  law.  And  now  we  are  told  that  the  reason  why 
the  sinner  is  not  saved  is,  he  refuses  to  "  confess  and  for- 
sake his  sins."  But  we  have  shown  that  the  system 
which  we  are  opposing,  renders  nearly  all  these  acts  un- 
necessary. This  is  eminently  the  case  with  confession 
of  sin.  It  is  the  act,  either  of  a  penitent  or  an  impenitent 
sinner.  If  of  an  impenitent  sinner,  it  is,  like  prayer  un- 
der the  same  circumstances,  an  act  of  rebellion — if  of  a 
penitent  sinner,  it  is,  like  prayer,  quite  imnecessary.  We 
refer  the  reader  for  a  more  full  development  of  this  argu- 
ment to  the  fourteenth  chapter. 

Whatever  others  may  think,  it  strikes  us  as  a  very  re- 
markable thing,  if  indeed  it  be  the  case,  that  the  impeni- 
tent sinner  should  have  such  a  strong  preference  for 
prayer.  According  to  the  representations  of  these  men, 
the  sinner  will  "  cry  to  God  for  mercy" — "  beg  of  God  to 
save  his  perishing  soul" — "  spend  whole  nights  thus" — 
"  shed  burning  tears,''  and  pass  sleepless  nights — publicly 
approach  the  altar,  or  mourners'  bench,  and  remain  there 
for  hours,  struggling  in  earnest  prayer  ;  and  all  to  aA'oid 
doing — what  1  Merely  resolving  to  serve  God,  or  willing 
to  be  a  Christian,  or  exercising  the  least  degree  of  repent- 
ance, which  may  be  done  by  any  man  in  a  single  moment ! 
"These  impenitent  prayers,"  we  are  told,  are  "the  last 
thing  which  the  impenitent  are  willing  to  give  up."  We 
are  quite  incapable  of  sympathizing  with  our  New  Divin- 
ity friends  in  their  troubles  on  this  point.  Our  difficul- 
ties are  of  a  directly  opposite  character.  We  find  it  very 
hard  work  to  induce  sinners  to  pray,  and  keep  them  to 
their  duty  in  this  matter.  And  our  difficulties,  in  many 
places,  are  not  a  little  increased  by  the  influence  of  New 
Divinity.  Sinners  are  not  easily  persuaded  to  submit  to 
the  severe  and  humiliating  terms  of  the  gospel,  as  under- 
stood by  the  Methodists,  unless  their  hearts  are  broken 
by  convictions.     It  will  afford  them  great  relief  to  be 


216  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

assured  that  tliey  can  be  converted  by  merely  making  up 
their  minds  to  be  Christians — an  act  which  the  Methodists 
enjoin  as  imperatively  as  do  the  New  School,  but  which 
they  consider  only  a  part  of  what  is  required.  Sinners  do 
not  pray  thus  because  they  prefer  the  exercise,  but  be- 
cause they  believe  the  word  of  God  requires  it ;  and  the 
difficulty  of  which  these  teachers  complain  arises  from 
this  conviction.  They  have  undertaken  the  task  of  per- 
suading the  awakened  and  inquiring  man  to  surrender  his 
belief  in  the  plainest  instructions  of  the  Bible,  and  to  rely 
on  a  theory  at  Avhich  his  common  sense  takes  alarm — 
and  I  would  to  God  that  they  may  find  far  more  difficulty. 
But,  unhappily,  they  have  on  their  side  whatever  remains 
of  pride,  of  indolence,  of  depravity  in  any  form. 

It  is  very  convenient  for  them  to  represent  the  praying 
sinner  as  desiring  mercy  and  heaven,  while  he  has  no  de- 
sire for  holiness.  Thus  does  Mr.  Fitch.  Mr.  Walton 
does  the  same  :  so  do  they  all.  But  Ave  have  seen  that 
they  are  no  better  pleased  when  the  sinner  prays  that 
God  would  create  in  him  a  clean  heart.  "  Does  God  say, 
Pray  for  a  new  heart  ?  Never !"  asks,  and  exclaims  Mr. 
Finney. 

Mr.  Fitch  assumes  that  repentance  and  prayer  for  mercy 
are  incompatible.  To  tell  the  sinner  to  pray,  Avhen  God 
has  commanded  him  "  to  repent  and  turn  himself  from  his 
transgressions,"  is  to  "  handle  the  word  of  God  deceitfully, 
and  daub  with  untempered  mortar."  Hold  !  To  forbid  the 
sinner  to  pray,  because  God  has  commanded  him  to  re- 
pent, is  to  countermand  the  aAvful  and  irrcA^ocable  edicts 
of  Heaven.     Let  him  that  does  it,  bcAvare  ! 

And  wliile  this  system  has  been  advancing  to  maturity, 
how  many,  Avho  reject  it  as  poison  Avhen  they  understand 
it,  have  been  delighted  Avith  the  deceitful  imagination,  that 
its  advocates  were  approaching  to  the  peculiarities  of 
Methodism. 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  217 

We  have  already  answered  the  argument,  drawn  from 
the  supposed  impenitence  of  the  praying  sinner.  On  this 
point  we  will  add,  if  every  act  performed  by  an  impeni- 
tent man  is  an  impenitent  act,  and  therefore  rebellious, 
and  yet  God  requires  the  impenitent  man  to  do  something 
in  order  to  be  saved,  it  follows  inevitably  that  every  im- 
penitent sinner  must  be  damned.  Because  every  effort 
ne  makes  must  be  an  impenitent  effort,  and  must  therefore 
leave  him  in  a  worse  condition  than  before. 


CHAPTER  XX. 


PRAYER    CONTINUED. 


We  propose  to  examine  the  objection  to  the  sinner  s 
praying  for  mercy,  which  is  deduced  from  the  willingness 
of  God  to  save.  Mr.  Fitch  is  not  solitary  in  his  reliance 
on  it ;  if  he  were,  w*e  should  attach  less  importance  to  it. 
It  is  frequently  thrown  out  by  other  writers  and  speakers 
of  the  same  school,  although  not  often  so  fully  developed 
as  in  the  instance  before  us.  Mr.  Duffield,  in  his  argu- 
ment on  the  same  subject,  says,  "  To  counsel  the  sinner 
in  any  other  way,  and  to  put  him  upon  efforts,  as  it  were 
to  turn  God  to  him,  is  taking  part  with  the  sinner  against 
God,  fostering  the  spirit  of  rebellion,  and  practically  slan- 
dering the  God  of  love.  It  is  the  sinner  that  must  be 
turned.     God  is  willing  to  save  him.'''' — p.  549. 

This  futile  objection  lies  equally  in  the  way  of  the  per- 
formance of  any  other  conditional  act.  It  may  as  well  be 
argued  that  we  confess  our  sins  to  make  God  willing  to 
save  us  ;  and  therefore  that  confession  of  sin  is  "  practi- 
cally slandering  the  God  of  love."  If  God  has  placed 
prayer  among  the  terms  of  forgiveness,  it  is  necessary  for 

10 


218  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

that  reason  ;  if  he  has  not,  it  is  unnecessary.  The  well- 
instructed  inquirer  prays  for  mercy  on  the  same  principle 
on  which  he  performs  any  other  exercise  which  God  has 
commanded.  Is  it  written,  "  If  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is 
faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins  ?"  It  is  also  written, 
"  They  that  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved." 

But  trifling  as  is  this  objection,  it  belongs  to  the  system 
of  New  Divinity,  and  we  proceed  to  trace  its  consequences. 
If  the  sinner  is  not  to  pray  for  his  own  salvation,  because 
God  is  willing  to  save  him,  for  the  same  reason  he  should 
decline  prayer  for  the  salvation  of  others.  If,  for  instance, 
"  Mary  and  Juliet"  had  gone  and  prayed  that  God  would 
have  mercy  on  their  young  companions,  would  not  the  act 
have  implied  the  unwillingness  of  God  to  save  sinners, 
just  as  much  as  prayer  offered  for  themselves  1 

And  shall  we  be  believed  when  we  affirm  that  this 
theory  is  actually  pushed,  in  its  practical  application,  up 
to  this  very  point  ?  In  this  book, — "The  Inquirer's  Guide" 
— written  expressly  for  the  direction  of  those  who  ask 
what  they  shall  do  to  be  saved,  is  this  strange  doctrine 
strenuously  inculcated. 

"  We  may  here  see,  also,  for  what  Christians  should 
pray,  when  they  plead  with  God  for  sinners. 

"  To  make  the  case  plain,  I  will  refer  again  to  the 
illustration  in  the  supposed  case  of  the  thief.  After  the 
legislature  have  determined  that  ho  may  be  set  at  liberty, 
if  he  will  confess  his  crime,  and  pledge  himself  to  obey 
the  law,  and  he  has  refused  to  do  this,  and  still  urges  his 
petition  for  a  pardon  a  long  time  without  success,  he  ob- 
tains a  lawyer  to  prepare  a  new  petition  for  him,  and  sends 
this,  in  the  form  of  a  memorial,  all  about  the  community, 
and  obtains  all  the  influential  names  far  and  near,  and  this 
is  handed  to  the  legislature,  praying  that  he  may  be  par- 
doned. The  individual  who  presents  the  petition  labours 
hard  to  operate  on  the  sympathies  of  those  before  whom 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  219 

he  brings  the  case.  He  speaks  of  the  dreadful  horrors 
of  a  dungeon,  and  of  the  painful  deprivation  of  being  cut 
off  for  ever  from  all  the  blessings  of  liberty  and  social  life ; 
and  brings  up  the  man's  family,  and  shows  how  dreadful 
it  must  be  to  them,  to  see  the  husband  and  the  father  torn 
from  their  arms,  and  immured  for  life  in  a  dismal  cell. 
But  the  legislature  say  at  once, '  Why  all  this  ?  Why  come 
to  operate  on  our  feelings  in  such  a  manner,  as  though  we 
were  a  company  of  hard-hearted  wretches,  that  could  not 
be  moved  at  the  miseries  of  our  fellow-men  ?  We  are  per- 
fectly willing  the  man  should  be  set  at  liberty  this  mo- 
ment. We  are  desirous  of  it — even  more  so  than  the 
petitioners  can  be.  Why,  then,  come  to  plead  with  us  1 
Go  to  the  wretched  man  for  whom  you  are  making  all  this 
exertion,  and  plead  with  him  to  confess  his  crime,  and 
promise  obedience,  and  then  he  is  pardoned,  and  we  shall 
rejoice  in  it  as  much  as  you.' 

"  Suppose  now  they  keep  urging  their  petition  ;  in 
what  light  could  their  conduct  be  regarded,  but  as  an 
abomination  1 

"  Look  now  at  the  sinner,  Avho  is  alarmed  at  his  expo- 
sure to  hell.  He  has  been  a  long  time  in  a  great  anxiety 
of  mind.  He  has  passed  many  sleepless  nights,  shed 
burning  tears  over  his  present  wretchedness,  and  his 
prospects  of  future  wo,  and  sent  up  many  loud  and  bitter 
cries  to  Heaven  for  mercy.  All  tliis  time  God  has  been 
pledging  him  free  and  full  forgiveness  and  everlasting  life, 
if  he  would  confess  and  forsake  his  sins,  but  this  he  has 
refused  to  do.  At  length,  full  of  distress,  he  goes  to  the 
minister  and  asks  his  prayers.  He  is  full  of  corapassioa 
for  the  unhappy  man,  sympathizes  in  his  sorrows,. falls 
down  on  his  knees  with  him,  and  begs  God,  with  great 
earnestness,  to  have  mercy  upon  him,  and  not  let  him  go 
to  hell. 

"  The  pastor  then  brings  the  case  of  tiie  '  poor  moum- 


320  NKW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

ing  sinner'  before  the  Church ;  they  all  weep  with  him, 
and  send  loud  cries  to  Heaven  for  mercy.  They  tell 
God  how  precious  is  this  man's  soul — how  dreadful  that 
he  should  be  shut  up  in  hell  for  ever.  And  if  he  has  a 
pious  wife  and  children,  they  beg  God  to  spare  them  the 
misery  of  seeing  the  husband  and  father  separated  from 
them  for  eternity,  and  shut  up  in  the  dark  prison-house 
of  hell. 

"  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  if  God  should  speak  to  that 
minister  and  that  church,  under  such  circumstances,  he 
would  say,  '  Why  cry  to  me  for  mercy,  as  though  I  had 
no  bowels  of  compassion  ?  As  I  live,  I  have  no  pleasure 
in  the  death  of  that  sinner,  but  that  he  turn  from  his  evil 
ways  and  live.  Why  talk  to  me  about  the  worth  of  his 
soul,  as  though  I  did  not  know  its  worth ;  or  about  the 
pains  of  hell,  as  though  I  did  not  know  that  they  were 
Hard  to  be  endured.  I  am  willing  to  save  that  sinner ;  I 
am  desirous  of  it — unspeakably  more  so  than  you  can  be. 
My  desires  for  his  salvation  have  been  such  that  I  have 
given  my  only-begotten  and  well-beloved  Son  to  die  for 
him  on  the  cross.  Why  cry  to  me  for  mercy  1  I  have  al- 
ready said,  that  if  he  will  confess  and  forsake  his  sins,  he 
shall  have  mercy.  Why  plead  thus  with  me  ?  Go  plead 
with  the  guilty  man  to  confess  and  forsake  his  sins,  and 
then  his  salvation  will  be  sure." — p.  106. 

The  reader  will  not  be  at  a  loss  to  determine  what  de- 
nomination of  Christians  Mr.  F.  has  reference  to,  in  the 
passage  just  quoted.  To  make  his  allusions  definite,  he 
quotes  the  common  and  well-known  phraseology  of  Me- 
thodists. 

He  goes  on,  and,  in  the  course  of  his  argument,  applies 
this  reasoning  to  the  case  of  the  pious  wife  praying  for 
the  irreligious  husband,  and  to  that  of  parents  praying  for 
their  children. 

He  supposes  the  husband  to  be  lost,  notwithstanding 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  221 

the  prayers  of  the  wife,  and  inquires,  "Why  were  not  the 
many  earnest  prayers  of  that  pious  wife  heard  in  behalf 
of  her  husband  1  She  prayed  for  that  for  which  she  had 
no  need  to  fray.  She  prayed  that  God  would  have  mercy 
on  him.  God  had  had  mercy  on  him,  and  sent  his  Son  to 
die  for  him.  She  prayed  that  he  might  he  saved.  God 
was  more  than  willing,  yea,  unspeakably  desirous  that  he 
should  be  saved :  and  if  he  were  to  speak  from  heaven 
now,  he  would  say,  '  As  I  live,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  his 
death.' 

"  Instead  of  taking  God's  part  against  her  husband,  and 
labouring  to  persuade  him  to  be  reconciled  to  God,  she 
was  actually  taking  her  husband's  part,  and  endeavouring 
to  persuade  God  to  be  reconciled  to  him.  Who  cannot 
see  that  such  must  necessarily  be  a  hopeless  undertaking  1" 

He  thinks  that  he  has  detected,  in  this  practice,  "  a  rea- 
son why  a  great  multitude  of  prayers  offered  for  the  sal- 
vation of  sinners  are  never  heard." 

Were  it  not  that  there  are  a  few  passages  of  Scripture 
scattered  along  the  pages  of  Mr.  Fitch's  book,  we  might 
be  led  to  wonder  whether,  in  the  search  for  families  and 
individuals  destitute  of  the  Bible,  Mr.  Fitch  had  not  been 
overlooked,  and  to  recommend  his  case  to  the  attention  of 
the  agents  of  the  American  Bible  Society.  WiU  he  apply 
his  illustration  respecting  the  thief  to  the  case  of  the  pub- 
lican, who  prayed,  "  God  he  merciful  to  me  a  sinner  ;"  or 
to  the  case  of  blind  Bartimeus,  Avho  prayed,  "  Jesus,  thou 
Son  of  David,  have  mercy  on  me ;"  or  to  the  case  of  the 
psalmist,  who  prayed,  "  Have  Tuercy  upon  me,  O  God,  ac- 
cording to  thy  loving  kindness  ;  according  to  the  multitude 
of  thy  tender  mercies  hlot  out  my  transgressions  V  Were 
these  prayers  an  abomination  to  God  \  Did  they  not  imply 
the  unwillingness  of  God  to  save,  as  much  as  similar 
prayers  at  the  present  day  ?  And  then,  with  respect  to 
prayers  offered  up  for  others,  has  he  not  read  that  the 


222  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

Saviour  prayed  thus  for  his  enemies  and  murderers,  "  Fa- 
ther,/orgwe  them,  for  they  knovi^  not  what  they  do?"  It 
was  in  this  way  that  "  he  made  intercession  for  the  trans- 
gressors," according  to  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah.  Has  he 
not  read  how  Stephen  prayed  for  his  persecutors  :  "  He 
kneeled  down,  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice.  Lord,  lay  not 
this  sin  to  their  charge  ?"  Does  he  suppose  that  if  God  had 
spoken  to  the  Saviour  and  to  Stephen,  he  would  have  said, 
"  Why  cry  to  me  for  mercy  ?  I  have  already  said,  that  if 
they  will  confess  and  forsake  their  sins,  they  shall  have 
mercy.  Why  plead  thus  with  me  1  Go  plead  with  the 
guilty  men  to  confess  and  forsake  their  sins,  and  then  their 
salvation  will  be  sure  ?" 

Mr.  Finney  attempts  to  dispose  of  the  Saviour's  example 
by  trifling  with  the  words,  "  for  they  know  not  what  they 
do."  He  says,  "  And  in  that  case  it  was  true — ^they  did 
not  know  what  they  were  doing,  for  they  did  not  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Messiah.  But  it  cannot  be  said 
of  sinners  under  the  gospel  that  they  do  not  know  what 
they  are  doing.  They  do  know  what  they  are  doing.  They 
do  not  see  the  extent  of  it ;  but  they  do  know  that  they 
are  sinning  against  God  and  rejecting  Christ,  and  the 
diflSculty  is,  they  are  unwilling  to  submit  to  God." — Lec- 
tures, p.  329. 

But  this  criticism  defeats  itself.  It  is  intended  to  make 
out  such  a  difference  between  the  murderers  of  the  Sa- 
viour, and  sinners  generally,  as  shall  justify  prayer  in  the 
one  case,  and  condemn  it  in  the  other;  and  yet  it  makes 
their  cases  essentially  alike.  Sinners  generally  know  what 
they  are  doing,  but  "  they  do  not  see  the  fxdl  extent  of  it." 
And  was  not  this  precisely  the  case  with  those  for  whom 
the  Saviour  prayed  ?  Did  they  not  know  that  they  were 
sinning  against  God  ?  Did  they  not  know  that  they  had 
unjustly  and  malignantly  procured  the  condemnation  of 
Jesus  Christ  ?    Certainly  they  did.     But  then  there  were 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  225 

some  things  they  did  not  know.  There  were  conse- 
quences which  they  did  not  foresee,  and  our  Saviour 
kindly  includes  this  consideration  in  his  prayer.  At  any 
rate,  the  prayer  must  have  had  reference  to  those  princi- 
ples and  acts  for  which  they  were  guilty  and  liable  to  be 
punished. 

But  if  it  is  unnecessary  to  pray  that  God  would  have 
mercy  on  sinners,  and  forgive  them,  because  he  is  already 
willing,  it  is,  for  the  same  reason,  unnecessary  to  pray  for 
them  at  all.  It  is  true,  Mr.  Fitch  halts  before  he  comes 
to  this  legitimate  conclusion ;  but  we  cannot  imagine  how 
any  man  of  ordinary  acumen  could  avoid  perceiving  it. 
He  insists  strenuously  on  praying  for  the  sinner;  but  what 
blessings  are  we  to  ask  for  him  ?  We  are  thus  informed, 
"  And  when  they  bow  their  knees  to  pray  for  him,  let  them 
not  cry  for  mercy  as  though  it  was  a  doubtful  case  whe- 
ther God  was  willing  to  exercise  mercy,  but  let  them  pray 
to  God  to  send  the  Holy  Ghost  into  his  heart,  to  '  reprove 
him  o|  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment,'  "  &c.  He 
also  insists  on  "  the  importance  of  faith  in  prayer."  So  it 
seems  that  God  is  willing  to  have  mercy  on  sinners, 
and  therefore  we  need  not  pray  for  that ;  but  he  is  not 
willing  to  send  the  Holy  Ghost  into  their  hearts,  and  bring 
them  to  repentance.  It  is,  at  least,  "  a  doubtful  case  ;" 
and  we  must  endeavour  to  change  his  mind  in  this  respect, 
and  make  him  willing  by  prayer,  and  even  then  he  will 
not  be  willing,  unless  we  pray  in  faith. 

Indeed,  we  have  often  been  led  to  suspect,  that  when 
prayer  has  been  offered  for  sinners  by  New  School  preach- 
ers, it  has  not  been  offered  on  the  supposition  that  any 
thing  would  be  obtained  in  answer  to  prayer,  but  merely 
as  a  part  of  the  machinery  of  moral  suasion.  The  poor 
sinner  has  been  mercilessly  belaboured  by  the  petitioner. 
God  has  been  told  what  a  vile,  infamous,  hard-hearted 
rebel  was  before  him.     Doubts  have  been  expressed  whe- 


224  NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER. 

ther  the  Holy  Ghost  would  ever  visit  the  sinner  again,  if 
he  should  not  submit  now.  Their  prayers  have  appeared 
to  be  intended,  not  to  obtain  a  blessing  from  God,  but  to 
operate  on  the  sensibilities  of  the  sinner,  and  frighten  him 
into  the  submission  demanded. 

The  tendency  of  Mr.  FitcNs  reasoning  is  olviously  to  do 
away  prayer  altogether.  For  the  sinner,  or  the  Christian, 
to  pray  for  mercy  on  himself  or  others  is  unnecessary, 
because  God  is  already  willing  to  have  mercy.  On  the 
same  principle  it  is  unnecessary  for  them  to  pray  for  any 
thing  that  God  is  willing  to  confer.  But  as  it  may  safely 
be  presumed  that  God  is  willing  to  confer  on  his  people 
whatever  is  for  their  good,  and  unwilling  to  confer  nothing 
but  what  is  injurious,  the  necessity  of  prayer  is  wholly 
superseded. 

Thus  we  see  to  what  fearful  issues  we  are  conducted. 
It  would  not  be  surprising  to  hear  such  objections  to 
prayer  from  a  Universalist  or  a  Deist ;  but  to  hear  them 
from  a  modern  revivalist,  a  minister  of  that  class  to^which 
the  term  evangelical  is  supposed  to  have  a  special  ap- 
plicability, is  truly  alarming.  But  New  Divinity  is  on  the 
high  road  to  Deism. 

Is  it  not  high  time  that  a  general  and  persevering  eftbrt 
were  made  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  public  mind  to  the  cha 
racter  and  tendencies  of  this  theory,  and  especially  to 
make  the  differencebetween  New  Divinity  and  Methodism 
clearly  apparent  ? 

But  why  this  clamorous  opposition  to  prayer  as  a  means 
of  obtaining  mercy  1  If  one  single  indivisible  act  of  the 
mind  is  sufficient  to  make  a  man  a  Christian,  and  the  very 
first  which  conforms  to  the  law  of  God  be  the  act  in  ques- 
tion ;  if  it  makes  no  difference,  as  we  have  been  told,  what 
may  be  the  specific  form  of  obedient  agency  which  the 
act  presents  ;  why  may  not  the  first  act  of  prayer  be  that 
which  introduces  the  important  change  ?  We  now  venture 


NEW  DIVINITY PRAYER.  225 

to  predict,  that  when  the  advocates  of  New  Divinity  are 
compelled  to  change  their  ground  respecting  sinners  pray- 
ing for  mercy  and  salvation,  as  will  most  assuredly  be  the 
case,  they  will  become  as  strenuous  in  recommending,  as 
they  now  are  in  opposing  it ;  and  that  too,  without  chang- 
ing their  general  theory.  They  will  proceed  on  the  prin- 
ciple, that  the  first  obedient  act  makes  the  Christian,  and 
that  prayer  is  that  act.  It  is  true,  that  they  will  be  incon- 
sistent, but  not  more  so  than  in  enjoining  any  other  act. 
They  will  then  appear  to  be  approaching  still  more  closely 
to  Methodism,  Avhile  they  are  as  far  from  it  as  ever. 
The  resemblance  will  be  only  in  outward  appearance. 
They  will  enjoin  prayer  on  the  principle  that  the  act  of 
prayer  for  mercy  changes  the  heart.  This  is  our  pro- 
phecy.    We  may  be  mistaken. 

It  is  supposed  that  these  objections  to  the  prayer  of  the 
sinner  for  salvation  are  sustained  by  those  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture which  affirm  that  "  the  prayer  of  the  wicked  is  an 
abomination,"  &c.  That  there  are  certain  states  of  mind 
which  would  render  prayer  an  abomination  to  God,  can- 
not be  doubted.  For  instance,  when  prayer  i»  hypocritical. 
Also,  when  it  is  offered  by  him  who,  at  the  same  time,  in- 
tends to  live  in  sin,  and  has  no  desire  to  become  holy. 
But  the  case  is  materially  altered  when  it  is  the  prayer  of 
one  who  deplores  his  sins  and  sinfulness,  and  desires 
to  be  pardoned  and  sanctified.  That  this  text  includes 
such  among  the  wicked  whose  prayer  is  an  abomination, 
is,  we  think,  extremely  doubtful.  We  know  it  does  not, 
for  they  are  both  commanded  and  encouraged  to  pray. 

10* 


2SB  NEW  Divn^rrr— MEANS  of  grace. 

CHAPTER   XXI. 

MEANS    OF    GRACE. 

It  is  sufficiently  manifest  that  while  the  advocates  of 
this  system  entertain  a  special  dislike  to  the  practice  of 
praying  to  God  for  pardon  and  regeneration,  the  system  it' 
self  operates  with  sijnilar  and  equally  destructive  effect  o?i  all 
the  means  of  grace.  If  one  single  act  of  the  mind  changes 
a  man  from  an  impenitent  rebel  to  a  Christian,  and  he  has 
a  natural  ability  to  perform  that  act  at  any  moment,  so 
that  the  sole  obstacle  to  its  instant  performance  is^his  un- 
willingness, then  all  the  acts  by  which  that  one  is  pre- 
ceded must  be  rebellious ;  and  to  perform  them,  with  the 
■  view  of  securing  the  favour  of  God,  while  that  one  act, 
which  would  accomplish  the  purpose  at  once,  is  wilfully 
declined,  must  be  the  most  flagrant  mockery  of  divine  au- 
thority. While,  therefore,  this  principle  sweeps  away 
prayer,  by  the  same  process  it  makes  the  same  disposi- 
tion of  all  the  other  conditional  and  preparatory  exercises. 

This  tcnd^cy  of  the  principles  and  arguments  of  New 
Divinity  has  been  repeatedly  developed  in  several  of  the 
preceding  chapters,  and  we  now  call  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  it  for  the  purpose  of  showing  in  what  light  the 
subject  is  regarded  by  the  leading  promulgators  of  that 
theory.  To  us  the  inference  is  irresistible,  that  the  sin- 
ner has  nothing  to  do  with  the  means  of  grace.  What 
then  do  they  teach  respecting  this  matter  1 

Mr.  Dutheld  is  explicit.  He  dcA^otes  a  whole  chapter 
to  the  subject  of  the  means  of  grace  ;  and  expresses  his 
sentiments  as  follows : — "  Surely,  such  exhortations  as 
the  following,  cannot  fail  to  have  a  most  deleterious  influ- 
ence. '  Now,  my  dear  young  friends,  here  is  your  duty, 
you  are  called  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  to  exercise  re- 
pentance unto  life.     But  you  are  not  called,  but  forbidden 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  227 

to  attempt  this  duty  in  your  own  strength.'  It  is  well  that 
the  feelings  of  many  counteract  the  influence  of  their 
theory ;  and  that  the  exhortations,  suggested  alike  by  the 
sacred  Scriptures  and  by  common  sense,  notwithstanding 
a  mystic  theology,  are  addressed  to  the  consciences  of 
sinners,  to  urge  them  to  instant  repentance.  The  exhorta- 
tions 'to  seek,'  and  'pray'  and  'strive'  and  'use  the 
means'  which  are  sometimes  substituted  for  those  which 
it  is  explicitly  given  in  charge  to  the  minister  of  Christ  to 
urge,  cannot  fail  to  perplex,  bewilder,  distract." — p.  544. 

Again  :  "  Take  the  confession  of  a  young  man,  which 
has  recently  been  spread  before  the  churches,  and  whose 
clear  discriminating  mind  required  better  counsellors  than 
it  seems  to  have  been  his  lot  to  meet :  '  I  was  almost 
ready  to  despair ;  but  I  remembered  that  God's  arm  was 
not  shortened,  that  it  could  not  save,  and  I  determined 
never  to>cease  from  striving :  but  even  this,  I  Imew  was  what 
I  would  not  be  able  to  do  of  myself.  This  continued  to  be 
my  state,  with  but  little  variation,  for  more  than  a  week. 
After  listening,  with  great  interest,  to  preaching,  and  talk- 
ing with  Christians,'  he  adds, '  nothing  they  said,  however, 
gave  me  much  encouragement.  It  was  only  "  strive," 
"  seek,"  "  ask,"  "  knock."  That  I  v/as  ready  to  do  ;  and 
for  the  few  days  past  this  darkness  has  been  breaking 
away,  and  in  its  place  a  calm  assurance  has  been  sue 
ceeding.' " — Ibid. 

Here  is,  we  think,  a  case  of  genuine  conversion ;  and 
yet  Mr.  D.  cites  it  for  the  purpose  of  throwing  suspicion 
upon  it,  and  of  condemning  the  instructions  which  the  indi- 
vidual received  and  the  course  he  pursued.  He  says, 
"  The  writer  of  these  confessions  may  have  become  such 
[a  Christian]  ;  but  other  evidence  of  the  fact,  than  that 
which  he  intimates  influences  his  judgment  in  the  case, 
is  indispensably  necessary."  After  some  farther  coimnent 
in  the  same  strain,  he  adds,  "  The  above  is  merely  selected 


228  NEW  DIVINITY — MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

as  a  specimen  of  the  practical  bearing  of  the  counsels 
given  by  those,  who,  instead  of  directing  at  once  to  the 
Saviour,  and  spreading  the  truth  which  is  to  be  believed 
before  the  mind,  and  exposing  the  guilt  and  danger  of 
every  moment's  delay  to  repent,  and  requiring  it,  as  by 
the  authority  of  God,  to  be  instantly  done — exhort  to 
pray,  and  read  the  Bible,  and  use  the  means  of  grace — 
seeking,  knocking,  striving  after  faith  and  repentance, 
and  what  not," — p.  545. 

We  do  not  care  to  answer  either  the  sophistry  or  the 
sneers  contained  in  the  above  remarks.  It  would  be  per- 
fectly easy  to  show  that  the  directions  which  seem  to  ex- 
cite his  contempt  are  just  such  as  were  given  by  Jesus 
Christ  himself;  but  our  object  is  to  present  the  sentiments 
of  Mr.  D.  respecting  the  means  of  grace,  and  we  think  that 
there  is  no  danger  of  misunderstanding  them. 

Again  he  says,  "  If  you  direct  him  to  rise  the  means,  as 
conducing  to  his  salvation,  or  to  make  any  other  eflbrt 
than  the  one  all  essential,  you  do  actually  soothe  him,  for 
the  present,  and  for  the  present  keep  him  from  Christ." 
~p.  547. 

Again :  "  To  tell  him  to  do  any  act  as  conducive  to  his 
salvation  prior  to  his  full  and  actual  compliance  with  the 
claims  of  God  for  his  heart,  is  to  tell  him  to  do  what  God 
abhors,  and  cannot  accept,  and  in  which  he  may  rest  to  his 
everlasting  perdition." — p.  550. 

Again  :  "  But,  as  he  would  not  throw  the  soul,  on  the 
very  threshold  of  the  kingdom,  immeasurably,  and  perhaps 
eternally,  back,  let  him  beware  how  he  directs  him  to  pray, 
or  to  use  the  means,  lest  he  comfort  him  in  his  rebellion." 
—p.  548. 

On  this  subject,  a  writer  in  the  Christian  Spectator 
remarks,  "  There  can  be  no  real  using  of  the  means  of 
grace  except  at  the  indivisible  moment  of  time  when,  re- 
nouncing his  selfish  feelings,  the  sinner  contemplates  di- 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  229 

vine  truth  as  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation,  and  instantly 
obeys  its  dictates.  Any  thing  short  of  this  is  not  a  use, 
but  an  abuse  of  the  means  of  grace." — Vol.  v,  No.  1,  page 
35.  The  amount  of  this  is  obviously  that  the  only  means 
of  grace  for  the  sinner  to  use  is  the  one  single  act  of  obe- 
dience performed  "  at  the  indivisible  moment  of  time" 
when  he  changes  his  own  heart. 

Take  one  passage  from  Mr.  Finney,  to  whom  belongs 
the  credit  of  a  fearless  presentation  of  his  system,  let  it 
lead  to  what  consequences  it  may.  In  his  lecture  on 
"  false  comforts  for  sinners,"  he  places  among  false  com- 
forts "  telling  a  sinner  he  must  use  the  means^  He  en- 
larges on  this  point  as  follows  :  "  Tell  an  anxious  sinner 
this — You  must  use  the  means,  and  he  is  relieved.  "  O, 
yes,  I  will  do  that,  if  that  is  all.  I  thought  that  God  re- 
quired me  to  repent  and  submit  to  him  now.  But  if  using 
the  means  will  answer,  I  will  do  it  with  all  my  heart." 
He  was  distressed  before  because  he  was  cornered  up,  and 
did  not  know  which  way  to  turn.  Conscience  had  beset 
him  like  a  wall  of  fire,  and  urged  him  to  repent  now.  But 
this  relieves  him  at  once,  and  he  feels  better,  and  is  very 
thankful,  he  says,  that  he  found  such  a  good  adviser  in  his 
distress.  But  he  may  use  the  means,  as  he  calls  it,  till  the 
day  of  judgment,  and  not  be  a  particle  the  better  for  it,  but 
will  only  hasten  his  way  to  death.  What  is  the  sinner's 
use  of  means  but  rebellion  against  God  ?  God  uses 
means.  The  Church  uses  means  to  convert  and  save 
sinners,  to  bear  down  upon  them,  and  bring  them  to  sub- 
mission. But  what  has  the  sinner  to  do  with  using  means  ? 
Will  you  set  him  to  using  means  back  upon  God,  and  so 
make  an  offset  in  the  matter !  Or  is  he  to  use  means  to 
make  himself  submit  to  God  ?  How  shall  he  go  to  work 
with  his  means  to  make  himself  submit  ?  It  is  just  telling 
the  sinner,  '  You  need  not  submit  to  God  now,  but  just 
use  the  means  awhile,  and  see  if  you  cannot  melt  God's 


# 


230  NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

heart  down  to  you,  so  that  he  will  yield  this  point  of  un- 
conditional submission.'  It  is  a  mere  cavil  to  evade  the 
duty  of  immediate  submission  to  God.  It  is  true,  that  sin- 
ners, actuated  by  a  regard  for  their  own  happiness,  often 
give  attention  to  the  subject  of  religion,  attend  meetings, 
and  pray,  and  read,  and  many  such  things.  But  in  all  this, 
they  have  no  regard  to  the  honour  of  God,  nor  do  they  so 
much  as  mean  to  obey  him.  Their  design  is  not  obedience, 
for  if  it  were  they  would  not  be  impenitent  sinners.  They 
are  not,  therefore,  using  the  means  of  grace  to  be  Christians, 
but  to  obtain  pardon  and  a  hope.  It  is  absurd  to  say  that 
an  impenitent  sinner  is  using  means  to  repent,  for  this  is 
the  same  as  to  say  that  he  is  willing  to  repent,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  he  does  repent,  and  is  not  an  impenitent  sinner. 
.  So,  to  say  that  an  unconverted  man  uses  means  with  a  design 
to  become  a  Christian,  is  a  contradiction,  for  it  is  saying, 
that  he  is  willing  to  be  a  Christian,  which  is  the  same  as 
to  say,  that  he  is  a  Christian  already." — p.  317. 

In  the  foregoing  quotations  we  have  not  only  a  distinct 
avowal  of  the  doctrine  which  we  have  charged  on  the  ad- 
vocates of  New  Divinity,  but  likewise  a  clear  illustration 
of  its  connection  with  bther  parts  of  their  system.  The 
impenitent  rebel  has  a  natural  ability,  by  one  single  "  in- 
divisible act  of  the  mind,"  which  may  be  performed  in  one 
"  indivisible  moment  of  time,"  to  change  his  heart  and 
make  himself  a  Christian.  Of  course,  to  say  that  he  is 
using  means  to  become  a  Christian  while  he  is  not  a 
Christian  is  absurd ;  for  he  could  become  a  Christian  at 
any  moment  if  he  were  willing.  Mr.  F.  reasons  unanswer- 
ably from  his  own  principles  when  he  imdertakes  to  show 
that  the  means  of  grace  are  unnecessary  and  injurious.  I* 
is  a  plain  inference.  Let  them  do  at  once  the  one  thing 
that  will  make  them  Christians.  While  they  refuse  to  do 
this,  the  use  of  the  means  of  grace  can  only  postpone  the 
change,  and  protract  their  rebellion. 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  231 

The  advocates  of  error  are  frequently  compelled  to  take 
refuge  in  the  most  glaring  contradictions,  or  run  their 
theories  out  into  the  most  revolting  absurdities.  In  this 
dilemma  New  Divinity  places  its  advocates,  and  they  are  , 
sometimes  foimd  hanging  on  one  horn,  sometimes  on  the 
other.  The  principle  on  which  they  base  their  objections 
to  prayer  for  mercy,  and  the  "  use  of  the  means"  in  gene- 
ral, would,  if  faithfully  adhered  to,  require  them  to  discou- 
rage the  reading  of  the  Bible,  religious  tracts  and  period! 
cals,  or  other  religious  publications  ;  as  also,  to  discourage 
religious  conversation,  attending  places  of  worship,  or  the 
performance  of  any  other  act,  on  the  part  of  the  unrenevv 
ed,  with  the  view  of  becoming  Christians.  Apply  to  any 
one  of  these  acts  the  reasoning  which  is  applied  to  prayer, 
and  using  the  means  of  grace  in  order  to  become  reli- 
gious, and  the  result  is,  that  it  is  impenitent  and  rebellious. 
This  Mr.  Duffield  affirms  in  the  following,  which  has  al- 
ready been  quoted : — 

"If  you  direct  him  to  use  the  means,  as  conducing  to  his 
salvation,  or  to  make  any  other  effort  than  the  one  all-essen- 
tial, you  do  actually  soothe  him  for  the  present,  and  for 
the  present  keep  him  from  Christ."  "  To  tell  him  to  per- 
form any  act,  as  conducive  to  his  full  and  actual  compli- 
ance with  the  claims  of  God  for  his  heart,  is  to  tell  Mm 
to  do  lohat  God  abhors,  a7id  cannot  accept,  and  in  which  he 
may  rest  to  his  everlasting  perdition."  ! 

If,  then.  New  Divinity  be  true,  nobody  should  read  thej 
Bible,  pray,  attend  the  house  of  God  and  hear  his  word, 
but  Christians.  To  encourage  others  to  do  any  of  these; 
things  as  conducive  to  their  becoming  Christians,  is  to: 
"  keep  them  from  Christ,''  "  comfort  them  in  their  rebel-j 
lion,"  and  tell  them  "  to  do  what  God  abhors."  ' 

Ministers  of  this  faith,  to  be  consistent,  should  Avarn  all 
unconverted  persons  against  doing  any  of  these,  from  such 
a  motive.    But  to  attempt  to  carry  this  theory  out  in  prac- 


232  NEW   DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

tice  would  arouse  both  piety  and  common  sense  to  indig- 
nant and  desperate  revolt.  They  are  therefore  compelled 
to  contradict  their  doctrines  by  their  every-day  practice. 
The  most  galling  fire  of  their  logic  is  poured  into  their 
own  ranks. 

!  Nor  are  they  less  inconsistent  in  their  doctrinal  state- 
ments than  in  their  practice.  Mr.  Duffield  talks  about 
"  preliminary  processes."  "  The  attention  of  the  mind  re- 
quisite to  perceive  truth,  the  fixing  and  dwelling  on  it  ne- 
cessary to  feel  it,  the  apprehension  of  the  evidence  that  in- 
deed it  is  truth,  and  the  actual  consenting  unto  it  as  pro- 
posed,—these  are  all  involved  in  those  preliminary  mental 
processes,  which  the  injunction  to  believe  and  repent  im- 
plies, and  which  have  a  natural  tendency  to  issue  exactly  in 
.  the  exercises  of  faith  and  repentance.  If  then  such  things 
be  called  using  the  means  of  grace,  we  shall  not  object. 
But  certainly  this  is  not  the  ordinary,  and  theological  use 
of  the  phrase." — p.  551.  So  it  seems  that  after  all,  Mr. 
D.  has  no  objection  to  the  sinner's  "using  the  means  of 
grace,"  if  he  will  only  use  those  for  which  Mr.  D.  has  a 
preference.  It  is  using  the  means  of  grace  in  "  the  ordi- 
nary and  theological  use  of  the  phrase"  to  which  he  ob- 
jects so  strenuously.  Let  the  awakened  sinner  only  avoid 
the  wicked  and  unscriptural  practice  enjoined  by  the 
Methodists,  of  praying,  reading  the  Bible,  "  seeking,  knock- 
ing, striving  after  faith  and  repentance,  and  what  7iot,"  and 
Mr.  D.  is  satisfied.  But  cannot  he  perceive — cannot  any 
one,  who  is  capable  of  reasoning,  perceive  that  his  ob- 
jections to  one  class  of  means  are  equally  fatal  to  the 
other  ?  What  are  those  "  preliminary  mental  processes," 
but  "  acts"  and  "  efforts"  preceding  the  "  one"  "  indivisi- 
ble" and  "  all-essential"  act,  and  "  conducing"  to  it  ?  Are 
we  not  compelled,  by  consistency,  to  class  them  with 
those  "  any  other  efforts"  which  Mr.  D.  so  pointedly  con- 
demns, as  calculated  to  soothe  tlie  sinner  for  the  present, 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OP  GRACE.  233 

and  for  the  present  keep  him  from  Christ  1  Mr.  D.'s  sys- 
tem places  him  in  this  dilemma — either  the  man  is,  in 
some  degree,  penitent  and  believing  when  he  enters  upon 
these  preliminary  processes,  or  he  is  wholly  impenitent  and 
unbelieving.  If  the  latter,  he  does  "  what  God  abhors 
and  cannot  accept."  If  the  former,  he  is  already  a  Chris- 
tian, and  the  preliminary  processes  are  all  reduced  to  sub- 
sequent processes.  Perhaps  it  may  be  replied,  that  "  to 
require  the  sinner  to  repent  and  believe,  without  these 
preliminary  processes,  would  be  absurd."  No  doubt  of 
that ;  but  not  more  so  than  is  the  whole  system  of  New 
Divinity. 

We  might  furnish  a  long  list  of  similar  incongruities, 
collected  from  writers  of  this  school,  but  the  examples 
given  are  fair  specimens  of  the  rest. 

There  can  be  no  difficulty  now  in  understanding  what 
is  meant  by  the  New  School  writers  and  preachers  when 
they  speak  of  immediate  repentance,  immediate  submis- 
sion, &c.,and  complain  that  these  are  not  sufficiently  insist- 
ed upon.  They  do  not  mean,  by  immediate  submission,  im- 
mediately entering  upon  those  preparatory  and  conditional 
performances,  which,  if  persevered  in,  will  eventuate  in 
regeneration.  They  mean  the  immediate  performance  of 
some  single  indivisible  act  of  the  mind,  without  taking  any 
previous  steps  as  conducing  to  it,  which  they  suppose  to 
change  a  man,  in  one  moment,  from  a  state  of  the  most  de- 
cided enmity  to  God,  to  the  condition  of  a  Christian.  No 
matter  how  plausible  the  general  terms  are,  in  which  they 
choose  to  describe  this  act — whether  they  call  it  a  change 
of  heart,  a  new  birth,  or  a  new  creation,  they  mean  no- 
thing more  than  one  single  act,  which  the  worst  man  has 
a  natural  ability  to  perform  at  any  moment,  without  prayer, 
or  reading  the  word  of  God,  or  using  any  of  the  means  of 
grace.  With  respect  to  the  nature  of  this  act,  it  is  no  mat- 
ter what  its  specific  form  may  be.     It  is  the  very  first  act 


234  NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

of  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  God,  whether  that  act 
be  a  sincere  desire  or  determination  to  be  a  Christian,  or  a 
single  movement  of  repentance,  or  of  faith,  or  of  gratitude 
to  God.  And  it  is  because  we  do  not  preach  this  doctrine, 
that  we  arc  represented  as  encouraging  the  sinner  in  re- 
bellion, and  keeping  him  away  from  Christ,  and  as  failing 
to  urge  the  sinner  to  instant  submission  ! ! 

There  is  one  feature  in  Mr.  DufReld's  discussion  of  the 
subject  which  is  somewhat  amusing.  After  having  de- 
scribed, in  his  own  way,  the  coiirse  of  those  who,  instead 
of  directing  the  sinner  to  immediate  submission,  "  exhort 
to  pray,  and  read  the  Bible,  and  use  the  means  of  grace — 
seeking,  knocking,  striving  after  faith  and  repentance,  and 
what  not,"  he  says,  "  Now  against  all  such  theory  and 
practice  Ave  enter  our  solemn  protest.  It  is  contrary  to 
the  principles  of  common  sense.  That  teaches  us  to 
direct  the  attention  specifica"y  and  directly  toward  the 
result  to  be  secured.  The  means,  or  process,  by  which 
that  result  is  to  be  obtained,  are,  in  many  cases,  instinct- 
ively discovered,  and  while  requiring  and  urging  the^na^ 
issue,  every  one  feels  that  the  jireliminary  processes  which, 
in  the  nature  of  things,  are  necessary  to  secure  it,  are 
also  required.  But  to  direct  the  attention  ^r.?^  to  these,  is, 
in  fact,  to  cause  the  mind  virtually  to  lose  sight  of  the  great 
end  to  be  secured." — p.  545. 

It  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  noticing  the  contradiction 
involved  in  the  admission  that  "  preliminary  processes" 
are  "  in  the  nature  of  things  necessary"  to  conversion, 
that  we  call  attention  to  this  singular  passage.  What  we 
have  in  view  is  the  declaration,  that  the  "  mean.s"  are  "  in- 
stinctively discovered,"  and  that  "  to  direct  the  attention" 
of  the  inquirer  "  first  to  these,  is,  to  cause"  him  "  to  lose 
sight  of  the  great  end  to  be  secured."  We  think  it  very 
probable  that  if  the  true  means  are  not  instinctively,  or 
otherwise  discovered,  independently  of  Mr.  D.'s  instruc- 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  235 

tions,  they  will  go  undiscovered.  But  let  us  try  this  doc- 
trine of  instinctive  discovery  and  directing  first  to  the 
end,  &c. 

The  man  who,  under  the  Jewish  law,  accidentally  killed 
another,  was  liable  to  be  immediately  killed  by  the  relative 
of  the  slain.  But  there  were  certain  cities,  called  cities 
of  refuge,  to  which  he  might  flee  and  be  secure  from  the 
avenger  of  blood.  A  man  has  killed  his  fellow.  His 
friend  urges  him  to  flee  instantly  to  the  nearest  city  of 
refuge.  He  does  not  know  the  way.  His  friend  is  en- 
gaged in  giving  him  directions,  when  up  comes  a  sage 
rabbi,  who  interferes  thus :  "  I  enter  my  solemn  protest 
against  the  manner  in  which  you  are  instructing  that  indi- 
vidual. Direct  his  attention  directly  and  specifically  to 
the  city  itself.  This  talk  about  the  road  he  is  to  pursue 
cannot  fail  to  perplex,  bewilder,  and  distract  him.  It 
diverts  his>  attention  from  the  city  itself.  Fly  instantly  to 
the  city.  You  will  discover  the  road  instinctively."  Who 
does  not  perceive  that  in  tliis  case  the  rabbi  would  have 
but  little  ground  on  which  to  establish  his  claims  to  supe- 
rior wisdom  ?  Now  we  take  tlris  rabbi  as  the  representa- 
tive of  Mr.  D. ;  and  while  we  would  most  sincerely  "enter 
our  protest  against  his  instructions,"  we  will  decline  at 
present  entering  our  solemn  protest. 


236  NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

MEANS  OF  GRACE  CONTINUED. 

Although  the  teachers  of  this  system  fail  to  conform 
their  practice  to  their  theory  in  some  instances,  we  must 
not  suppose  that  tliis  is  the  case  in  every  instance.  Mr. 
Duffield  informs  us,  that  these  doctrines  influence  their 
"  whole  system  of  spiritual  tactics."  This  fact  is  specially 
exemplified  on  the  subject  of  prayer,  as  a  means  of  ob- 
taining salvation.  i 

Here  is  one  of  the  leading  points  of  difference  between 
the  New  School  Calvinists  and  the  Methodists,  in  the 
treatment  of  awakened  sinners.  Let  any  close  and  intel- 
ligent observer  attend  alternately  the  meetings  of  these 
denominations,  while  both  are  in  the  midst  of  a  revival, 
and  he  will  find,  that  while  the  Methodists  invariably  urge 
on  the  inquirer,  not  only  to  decide  instantly  and  fully  in 
favour  of  the  service  of  God,  to  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel,  but  likewise  to  pray  for  the  regenerating  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  especially  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins,  the  other  party  decline  altogether  these  exhortations 
to  prayer.  They  exhort  to  immediate  decision,  or  re- 
pentance, or  faith — acts  which  they  consider  identical  with, 
or  at  least  equivalent  to,  each  other.  They  employ  power- 
ful, arguments  to  enforce  their  exhortations.  They  call 
on  the  church  to  pray  for  the  sinner,  but  they  do  not  re- 
quire him  to  pray  for  himself.  We  speak  what  we  know, 
and  testify  what  we  have  seen.  Great  pains  have  been 
taken,  on  our  part,  to  obtain  information  on  these  subjects, 
and  we  are  fully  assured  not  only  of  our  intention  to  speak 
the  truth,  but  of  the  correctness  of  what  we  affirm.  We 
have  attended  revival  meetings,  both  in  Philadelphia  and 


NEW  DIVINITY— MEANS  OF  GRACE.  237 

in  New-York,  in  some  of  the  leading  and  most  successful 
churches  under  the  influence  of  New  Divinity,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  observing  their  manner  of  proceeding.  We  have 
seen,  at  the  close  of  the  sermon,  nearly,  if  not  quite,  two 
hundred  persons,  go,  as  inquirers,  to  the  pews  assigned 
them  near  the  pulpit.  We  have  heard  them  addressed  on 
the  subject  of  their  duty,  urged  to  the  performance  of  it — 
and  in  all  that  was  said  to  them  there  was  not  a  single 
exhortation  to  pray  for  pardon  and  regeneration.  One  or 
two  prayers  were  offered  in  their  behalf,  and  they  were 
dismissed.  We  have  been  solicited  to  preach  at  protracted 
meetings  conducted  on  the  principles  of  New  Divinity ; 
and,  feeling  no  reluctance  to  do  what  we  could  consist- 
ently, have  accepted  these  invitations.  We  have  attended 
one  or  two  inquiry  meetings,  and  seen  this  theory  carried 
out,  by  addressing  inquirers  as  Christians,  merely  because 
they  had  fully  made  up  their  minds  to  become  the  ser- 
vants of  God,  without  one  exhortation  to  pray,  or  to  seek 
for  justification  by  faith  and  a  change  of  heart ;  and  we 
have  been  led  to  grapple  with  painful  doubts,  whether 
we  were  doing  right  in  silently  bidding  God  speed  to  a 
system  which  trifles  so  egregiously  with  the  awful  inte- 
rests of  eternity. 

Some  may  be  ready  to  ask  with  astonishment.  Do  they 
not  direct  inquirers  to  bow  the  knee  in  prayer  ?  Have  we 
not  seen  them  kneel  down  by  himdreds,  in  compliance 
with  this  direction  ?  We  doubt  not  that  such  scenes  have 
been  witnessed.  But  if  any  have  inferred  from  this  fact 
merely,  that  the  duty  of  prayer  for  mercy  and  salvation 
was  enjoined  on  those  inquirers,  they  have  doubtless  been 
misled.  According  to  the  account,  published  in  the  New- 
York  Evangelist  for  January  13,  1838,  of  a  revival  in  the 
Seventh  Presbyterian  Church,  under  the  pastoral  care  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Hatfield,  this  very  course  was  pursued ;  but  the 
reason  of  their  bowing  the  knee  is  explained  by  Mr.  H. 


238  NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

himself.  "  The  anxious  were  invited  after  sermon  to  the 
lecture-room ;  and,  it  was  thought,  more  than  three  hun- 
dred assembled  there  deeply  affected.  An  unusually  large 
proportion  of  these  were  men.  Nearly  all  of  these  bowed 
the  knee  during  prayer,  in  token  of  their  willingness  to  give 
up  all  for  Christ,  and  determination  to  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit 
no  more."  Again :  "  Although  there  was  a  very  heavy 
rain  on  Thursday  evening,  the  congregation  was  very 
large,  and  one  hundred  inquirers  met  after  sermon  in  the 
lecture-room.  When  called  to  bow  the  knee  in  token  of  sub- 
scribing themselves  to  be  the  Lord's,  all  but  three  or  four 
instantly  complied,  and  gladly,  with  the  invitation."  The 
object  of  this  movement  is  plainly  stated.  It  was  not  that 
they  might  pray  for  forgiveness  and  spiritual  influence, 
that  they  were  "  called  to  bow  the  knee,"  but  merely  that 
they  might  furnish  an  outward  indication  of  "  their  deter- 
mination to  grieve  the  Holy  Spirit  no  more,"  &c.  While 
this  revival  was  going  on,  there  was  also  in  the  same 
neighbourhood  a  Methodist  revival  of  great  power,  in 
which  "  inquirers"  were  "  called  upon  to  bow  the  knee  ;" 
but  not  merely  as  a  token  of  their  sincere  determination, 
henceforth,  to  become  the  servants  of  God,  but  that  they 
might  carry  out  that  determination,  by  godly  sorrow  for 
sin,  by  penitential  confession,  by  calling  upon  God  in  per- 
severing prayer,  until  he  should  forgive  their  sins,  regene- 
rate them,  and  grant  them  the  evidence  of  their  acceptance 
with  God,  and  peace  and  joy  through  believing. 

The  preachers  of  New  Divinity  may  pursue  a  great  va- 
riety of  measures  without  departing  from  the  leading 
principles  of  their  system.  As,  according  to  their  gospel, 
sinners  are  converted  by  moral  suasion,  they  will,  of 
course,  adopt  those  measures  which,  all  things  con- 
sidered, appear  most  likely  to  persuade  them  to  that  de- 
termination which  is  supposed  to  constitute  conversion. 
They  may  differ  in  opinion  as  to  what  particular  measures 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  239 

are  best  adapted  to  tlie  human  constitution.  Or,  to  sup- 
pose them  perfectly  agreed  on  this  point,  they  may,  from 
certain  considerations,  consent  to  vary  their  measures, 
preferring  some  at  one  time,  because  they  have  the  ad- 
vantage of  novelty,  or  because  there  is  a  great  partiality 
for  them — and  declining  the  same  at  another  time,  because 
there  are  powerful  prejudices  against  them. 

In  some  instajices,  and  in  places  where  the  influence 
of  Methodism  has  been  considerable,  they  have  invited 
awakened  sinners  to  the  altar,  and  called  forward  the  Me- 
thodist brethren  to  assist  in  giving  instructions,  just  as  if 
there  were  a  perfect  agreement  of  opinion  as  to  the  in- 
structions to  be  given.  This,  we  have  been  informed, 
was  done  by  Mr.  Finney  when  he  first  set  out.  It  is  true, 
the  Methodists  did  not  work  altogether  to  his  satisfaction, 
as  may  be  seen  by  reading  his  lecture  on  "  False  Com- 
forts FOR  Sinners,"  v/here  Methodistic  prayers  and  in- 
structions are  held  up  to  ridicule ;  but  then  this  was,  on 
the  whole,  his  best  policy.  It  served  to  hide  from  obser- 
vation the  great  difference  between  New  Divinity  and 
Methodism,  at  a  time  when  the  perception  of  it  might  have 
operated  very  unfavourably,  and  also  to  enlist  the  sympa- 
thies and  suffrages  of  Methodism  against  Old  School  op- 
position. Generally,  inquirers  have  been  invited  to  the 
anxious  seats  near  the  pulpit,  to  be  instructed  and  prayed 
for.  In  many  instances,  they  are  required  to  withdraw 
from  the  congregation  to  the  lecture-room.  What  takes 
place  there,  except  in  one  or  two  instances,  we  are  not 
prepared  to  afiirm.  These  meetings  are  conducted  with 
considerable  privacy,  but,  from  what  we  have  occasionally 
heard,  we  have  reason  to  believe,  that  there  the  principles 
of  New  Divinity  have  their  freest  and  fullest  development 
and  application.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Welton  says  of  the  "  in- 
quiry meetings"  held  by  Mr.  Burchard  in  Poughkeepsie, 
"  Here,  under  God,  lies  much  of  the  strength  of  Br.  B., 


240  NEW  DIVINITY — MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

and  persons  who  have  not  been  present  at  those  meetings 
can  form  but  an  imperfect  idea  of  the  plan  of  operation, 
and  the  amount  of  doctrinal  knowledge  communicated  to 
the  hopeful  convert.  Here  they  have  demonstration  so 
clear  and  lucid  that  many  soon  appear  like  old  and  expe- 
rienced Christians."  The  meetings  at  which  such  a  vast 
amount  of  doctrinal  knowledge  was  communicated,  were 
held  "  after  the  public  services  had  closed." — N.  Y.  Evan- 
gelist, No.  387. 

With  respect  to  the  means  of  ascertaining  who  have 
submitted,  we  observe  an  equal  variety.  Sometimes  they 
are  required  to  leave  one  set  of  seats,  and  take  another, 
as  a  token  of  submission ;  sometimes  to  rise  up  in  the 
congregation,  and  sometimes  to  "  bow  the  knee."  In  one 
of  the  numbers  of  the  New- York  Evangelist  for  July,  1 837, 
,  there  is  an  account  of  a  revival,  under  the  direction  of 
Rev.  Mr.  Foote,  in  which  it  is  particularly  stated,  that  all 
new  measures  ivere  avoided.  The  gospel  was  preached, 
and  the  congregations  dismissed  as  at  ordinary  times,  and 
those  who  had  "  made  the  wise  choice"  were  invited  to 
meet  with  the  people  of  God  to  be  addressed  as  Chris- 
tians. This  is  all  perfectly  consistent  with  the  New  School 
theology. 

We  would  not  be  understood  to  affirm  that  they  never 
direct  the  sinner  to  pray.  In  the  little  book  by  Dr.  Skin- 
ner and  President  Beecher,  to  which  we  have  several 
times  referred,  there  is  the  following  direction  :  "  After 
you  shall  have  prayed  with  him,  it  may  someiimes  be  use- 
ful to  call  on  him  to  pray  for  liimself."  We  are  not  to 
suppose,  however,  that  this  is  a  concession  in  favour  of 
Methodist  principles  and  practice.  It  is  not  intended  that 
the  sinner  shall  be  directed  to  pray  for  mercy,  in  expecta- 
tion of  receiving  it  in  answer  to  prayer.  To  suppose  that 
it  is  so  intended,  wotdd  be  to  array  the  authors,  not  only 
against  their  brethren  of  the  same  school,  but  also  against 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  241 

themselves  ;  for  they  explicitly  direct  that  the  sinner  shall 
be  told,  that  to  become  religious  is  an  intelligent,  volun- 
tary, indivisible  act  of  the  mind,  in  vi^hich  he  ceases  to 
rebel  against  God,  submits  to  his  authority,  and  accepts 
of  his  mercy ;  and  that  to  perform  this  act  requires  no 
length  of  time,  and  no  protracted  effort ;  that  it  may  be 
done  at  this  time,  and  in  this  place  ;  and  that  if  he  departs 
from  this  place  vi^ithout  performing  this  act,  he  goes  in  a 
spirit  of  stouter  rebellion,  and  may  bring  upon  himself 
svfih  and  sudden  destruction. — p.  42. 

We  vi^ould  here  ask,  on  what  principle  the  sinner  shall 
be  directed  to  pray  for  mercy,  when  he  can  become  reli- 
gious without  prayer,  by  one  voluntary,  indivisible  act  of 
the  mind,  which  requires  no  length  of  time,  but  may  be 
done  at  this  time,  and  in  this  place  ?  Either  the  first  ac# 
of  prayer  must  be  the  act  in  which  he  ceases  to  rebel 
against  God,  submits  to  his  authority,  accepts  his  mercy, 
and  becomes  religious,  or  he  is  directed  to  perform  a  re- 
bellious act  as  conducive  to  his  submission.  Suppose  he 
departs  from  the  place  of  conversation  to  his  chamber  to 
pray ;  if  he  has  not  already  performed  the  act  which 
makes  him  a  Christian,  "  he  goes  on  in  a  spirit  of  stouter 
rebellion."  In  short,  here  is  an  exhortation  to  the  prac- 
tice, which  elsewhere  they  so  unsparingly  condemn,  on 
directing  persons  to  pray  whom  they  profess  to  consider 
"  impenitent  sinners." 

But  this  direction  to  pray,  it  would  seein,  is  not  to  be 
given  indiscriminately.  It  is  only  "  sometimes"  that  this 
practice  "  may  be  useful."  If  this  be  the  case,  will  there 
not  be  difficulty  in  determining  when  it  is  proper  to  resort 
to  it  ?  We  would  suggest  one  rule,  for  the  guidance  of 
those  concerned.  When  the  doctrine,  that  a  man  may 
change  his  own  heart,  without  prayer,  at  any  moment,  is 
likely  to  shock  the  feelings  and  understanding  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  whom  it  is  addressed,  and  excite  suspicions  of 

11 


242  NEW  DIVINITV MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

dangerous  error,  as  may  easily  be  the  case,  if  he  has  been 
Methodistically  educated,  then  it  may  "  be  useful  to  call 
on  him  to  pray  for  himself." 

Having  contemplated  the  ravages  of  New  Divinity  on 
those  means  of  grace  by  which,  according  to  God's  ap- 
pointment, the  sinner  secures  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins, 
and  the  renewal  of  his  nature,  we  proceed  to  trace  still 
further  its  desolating  career.  We  now  find  ourselves  guided 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  hardened  sinner  may  become  a 
Christian,  without  any  of  those  deep  and  painful  convictions 
for  sin  which  constitute  godly  sorrow,  such  as  Peter  felt 
when  he  went  out  and  wept  bitterly ;  and  that  these  exercises, 
so  far  from  entering  essentially  into  the  nature  of  repentance 
and  submission,  as  the  Methodists  suppose,  are  indicative  of, 
and  caused  by,  rebellion  against  God.  The  process  of  rea- 
soning by  which  Ave  arrive  at  this  point  has  been  reiterated 
again  and  again.  Regeneration  is  one  indivisible  act  of 
the  mind,  which  the  sinner  has  a  natural  ability  to  perform 
at  any  moment.  Of  course,  for  him  to  be  crying  and  wail- 
ing over  his  depravity,  and  exposure  to  punishment,  is  ab- 
surd and  inexcusable.  It  is  quite  as  bad  as  praying  for 
forgiveness  while  he  refuses  to  perform  his  immediate 
duty.  Let  him  do  what  he  is  all  along  perversely  refusing 
to  do,  and  the  cause  of  his  distress  will  be  instantly  re- 
moved. This  he  might  have  done  at  the  commencement 
of  his  disquietude,  or  even  before  it  commenced,  and  thus 
prevented  it  altogether. 

In  accordance  with  this  obvious  tendency  of  the  system, 
Mr.  Finney  says,  in  his  lecture  on  "  False  Comforts  for 
Sinners,"  "  What  is  all  his  distress  but  rebellion  itself 
He  is  not  comforted,  because  he  refuses  to  be  comforted. 
God  is  ready  to  comfort  him.  You  need  not  think  to  be 
more  compassionate  than  God.  He  Avill  fill  liim  with 
comfort  in  an  instant  if  he  will  submit.  But  there  he  stands 
struggling  against  God,  and  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  243 

against  conscience,  until  he  is  distressed  almost  to  death,  and 
still  he  will  not  yield." — p.  314. 

It  is  plain  that  Mr.  F.  does  not  consider  any  part  of  tte 
inquirer's  distress  as  the  consequence  of  voluntarily  yield- 
ing to  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  as  constituting  repentance  or 
godly  sorrow  for  sin.  It  is  solely  the  consequence  of  re- 
bellion. "  If  he  would  submit,"  or,  in  other  words  of  this 
same  author,  if  he  would  "  yield  one  point  to  divine  au- 
thority," God  would  comfort  him  in  an  instant.  On  the 
same  page  he  adds,  "  It  is  his  clear  view  of  the  nature 
and  dx\ty  of  repentance  that  produces  his  distress.  It  is 
the  light  that  brings  agony  to  his  mind  while  he  refuses  to 
obey"  So  far,  it  seems,  from  this  distress  constituting  re- 
pentance, or  belonging  to  it,  it  is  owing  solely  to  the  sinner's 
refusing  to  repent.  He  sees  the  nature  and  duty  of  re- 
pentance— he  refuses  to  obey,  and  hence  his  distress. 

In  another  lecture,  he  says,  "  Another  error  is  in  sup- 
posing that  they  must  suffer  a  considerable  time  under  convic- 
tion, as  a  kind  of  punishment,  before  they  are  ready  properly 
to  come  to  Christ.  And  so  they  will  pray  for  conviction. 
And  they  think  that  if  they  are  ground  down  to  the  earth 
with  distress,  for  a  sufficient  time,  then  God  will  pity 
them,  and  be  more  ready  to  help  them,  when  he  sees  them 
so  very  miserable.  They  should  be  made  to  understand 
clearly  that  they  are  thus  unhappy  and  miserable,  merely 
because  they  refuse  to  accept  the  relief  which  God  offers. 
Take  the  case  of  the  stubborn  child,  when  his  parent 
stands  over  him  with  the  rod,  and  the  child  shudders  and 
screams.  Should  that  child  imagine  he  is  gaining  any 
thing  by  his  agony  ?  His  distress  arises  from  his  convic- 
tion, and  shall  he  pray  for  more  conviction?  Does  that 
make  him  any  better  ?  Does  his  father  pity  him  any  more 
because  he  stands  out  ?  Who  does  not  see  that  he  is  all 
the  Avhile  growing  worse  ?" — p.  345. 

This  passage  fully  declares  Mr.  Finney's  views.     The 


244  NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

sinner,  whose  spirit  is  deeply  troubled  on  account  of  his 
character  and  condition,  is  like  the  stubborn  child  under 
the  rod,  who  *'  shudders  and  screams,"  and  is  in  "  agony," 
but  yet  "  stands  out" — the  whole  cause  of  whose  agony 
is  his  rebellion,  which  makes  the  use  of  the  rod  necessary. 
He  is  miserable,  merely  because  he  refuses  to  accept  the 
relief.  His  conviction  makes  him  no  better,  but,  on  the 
conti'ary,  he  grows  worse  and  worse. 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  endorse  the  doctrine,  that  it  is 
necessary  to  "suffer  a  considerable  time  under  conviction, 
as  a  kind  of  punishment."  We  are  strongly  inclined  to 
look  upon  this  representation  as  an  intentional  caricature 
of  the  true  doctrine.  Mr.  Finney's  doctrine  is,  that  no 
distress  of  mind  is  strictly  necessary  to  repentance,  whe- 
ther as  a  punishment  or  a  blessing. 

We  find  these  sentiments  clearly  affirmed  in  a  Sermon 
on  Sanctification,  by  the  Rev.  Daniel  A.  Clark,  published 
in  the  National  Preacher. 

He  remarks — "Another  question  may  here  very  pro- 
perly be  asked.  When  does  holiness  begin  ?  And  the  an- 
swer is  obvious.  It  begins  at  the  moment  of  regeneration. 
Till  then  all  the  exercises  are  unholy  ;  for  the  carnal  mind 
is  enmity  against  God.  Nor  is  there  any  degree  of  alarm, 
or  any  amount  of  conviction,  that  can  generate  a  holy  af- 
fection in  the  heart  previously  to  that  period.  Of  course, 
all  the  prayers  offered,  and  all  the  exertions  made,  pre- 
viously to  this  change,  are  all  unregenerate  prayers  and 
exertions.  Nor  can  it  be  believed  consistently  w^ith  cor- 
rect Scripture  views,  that,  anterior  to  this  moment,  there 
is  any  approximation  toward  correct  feeling.  No  alarm^  nor 
the  most  distinct  conviction,  can  bring  an  unregenerate  man 
to  feel  more  correctly  toward  God,  or  an  miholy  object,  than 
he  did  in  a  state  of  carelessness  and  security. ^^ 

Again :  "  And  then  it  may  be  a  question,  whether  the 
sinner,  under  alarm,  does  not  wax  worse  and  worse,  till  the 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  24^ 

moment  of  passing  from  death  unto  life  1  If  he  lias  more 
light — if  he  sees  more  distinctly  the  objects  of  his  im- 
placable hatred,  does  lie  not  obviously  rise  in  hatred,  till  it 
is  changed  into  love?'" — No.  118. 

This  doctrine  is  also  contained  in  the  following  passage 
from  Dr.  Skinner  and  President  Beecher's  "  Hints,"  &c. 
**  Studiously  avoid,  in  all  your  directions  and  prayers, 
direct  or  implied  misrepresentations  of  the  real  condition, 
of  impenitent  sinners.  Never  forget  that  they  are  free 
agents,  and  do  always  and  obstinately  resist  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  that  their  anguish,  perplexity,  confusion  of  mind, 
and  other  difficulties  proceed  from  this  cause." — p.  13. 

Indeed,  the  first  time  we  ever  heard  this  doctrine 
it  was  avowed  by  Dr.  S.  in  the  Fifth  Presbyterian  Church 
of  Philadelphia,  of  which  he  was  then  the  pastor.  There 
were  a  number  of  "  anxious  persons"  present.  He  af- 
firmed broadly,  and  without  qualification,  that  every  in- 
stance of  deep  distress  on  the  part  of  awakened  sinners 
was  to  be  attributed  to  resistance  to  the  Holy  Ghost. 
We  were  startled  by  the  declaration,  but  did  not  understand 
its  source  and  bearing  as  well  as  we  now  do. 

In  opposition  to  this  strange  notion,  we  affirm  that  deep 
mental  distress  on  account  of  depravity  and  condemnation 
is  one  of  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit — that  it  is  required  of 
every  sinner — that  it  is  a  constituent  of  repentance — and 
that  one  reason  why  many  fall  short  of  saving  experience 
is,  that  their  convictions  are  not  sufficiently  deep  and  pain- 
ful. They  are  not  deep  enough  to  imbitter  sin.  And  the 
reason  why  they  do  not  arrive  at  the  requisite  intensity 
is  resistance  to  the  Spirit's  influences  on  the  part  of 
the  awakened  sinner.  He  refuses  to  obey  the  impulses 
of  the  Spirit.  If  he  would  surrender  himself  fully  to  the 
guidance  of  the  Spirit,  he  would  be  led  on  to  still  more 
painful  discoveries  of  his  character  and  condition,  and 
thus  prepared  for  the  full  and  cordial  acceptance  of  the 


246  NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

atonement,  and  an  entire  dedication  of  himself  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God. 

We  do  not  maintain  that  deep  convictions  are  necessary 
to  the  first  act  of  submission  to  God.  This  is  often  the 
result,  or  development,  of  a  merely  intellectual  conviction, 
so  far  as  the  state  of  mind  is  concerned.  We  suppose 
that  a  man  in  his  right  mind,  and  not  deserted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  may,  at  any  time,  take  the  first  step  toward  his  con- 
version. If  it  were  true  that  the  first  movement  of  the 
mind  which  conforms  to  the  will  of  God  constitutes  rege- 
neration, we  should  be  obliged  to  admit  that  convictions 
are  not  always  necessary  to  regeneration.  But  this  is  not 
the  case.  It  is  but  the  commencement  of  a  process  ne- 
cessary to  the  attainment  of  that  blessing ;  and  in  that 
process  these  painful  exercises,  for  which  the  New  School 
theory  finds  no  place,  are  invariably  developed. 

Nor  do  we  maintain  that  these  exercises  must  be  alike 
in  all  cases.  Various  causes  may  operate  to  modify  them. 
In  some  they  are  intense  and  violent,  almost  driving  the 
individual  to  distraction.  In  others  they  are  much  less 
severe,  but  yet  sufficient  for  the  end  for  which  they  are 
designed.  They  are  the  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  working 
repentance  unto  salvation,  which  needs  not  to  be  repented 
of.  And  the  disagreement  between  the  Scriptures  and 
New  Divinity,  may  be  inferred  from  the  discordant  con- 
siderations with  which  they  respectively  regard  these 
mental  disquietudes. 

Neither  is  it  denied  that  distress  of  mind  may  be  great- 
ly augmented,  prolonged,  and  modified,  by  a  reluctance 
to  acquiesce  in  some  of  the  requisitions  of  duty,  or  the 
want  of  a  vigorous  effort :  nor  that  in  some  instances  the 
Spirit  produces  deep  and  harassing  convictions  in  despite 
of  the  sinner's  resolute  resistance.  But  these  facts  nei- 
ther suggest  nor  sustain  the  inference,  that  all  cases  of 
deep  distress  on  account  of  sin  are  to  be  attributed  to 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  247 

resistance  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Almighty  Spirit  dis- 
plays his  sovereignty  by  greatly  diversified  operations,  all 
tending  to  the  same  ends  ;  but  the  production  of  godly 
sorrow  for  sin,  as  subservient  to  repentance  and  faith,  is 
but  the  execution  of  an  invariable  law  in  the  economy  of 
grace. 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  this  doctrine  will  be  carried 
out  faithfully  in  all  the  preaching  and  writings  of  New 
Divinity.  It  is  most  likely  to  be  brought  to  bear  on  cases 
of  very  deep  and  protracted  distress.  For  whatever  may 
be  the  ability  of  the  sinner,  or  the  causes  and  moral  quality 
of  this  painful  anxiety,  they  find  it,  in  general,  quite  con- 
ducive to  submission  to  their  instructions.  Hence  they 
labour  to  produce  it.  But  they  desire  to  produce  just 
enough  to  lead  the  sinner  to  resolve  on  becoming  a  Chris- 
tian, and  joining  the  Church.  It  is  the  unwillingness  of 
the  sinner  to  take  these  steps,  and  that  alone,  which  makes 
any  degree  of  uneasiness  necessary.  In  some  instances, 
it  would  seem,  the  sinner  approves  of  his  duty,  makes  no 
resistance  to  the  Spirit,  but  at  once  exerts  his  natural 
ability,  resolves  on  becoming  a  Christian,  and  becomes 
one  without  any  distress  of  mind  whatever — and  then  we 
have  one  of  the  examples,  so  highly  lauded,  of  a  calm,  in- 
telligent submission.  But  when  the  anxiety  of  mind  be- 
comes so  deep  as  to  induce  strong  cries  for  mercy,  and 
an  unwillingness  to  be  comforted,  without  an  evidence  of 
acceptance  with  God,  it  is  deemed  a  serious  disadvantage , 
The  case  then  becomes  unmanageable,  on  their  theory. 
They  construe  it  into  a  case  of  obstinate  rebellion.  The 
sinner  is  able,  at  any  moment,  to  submit,  but  is  unwilling. 
He  must  be  urged  to  immediate  submission.  He  must  be 
told  that  all  his  distress  is  but  the  evidence  of  stout  re- 
bellion. He  is  not  willing  to  place  himself  in  the  hands 
of  God  to  be  disposed  of  as  he  pleases.  He  is  selfish — 
he  is  waxing  worse  and  worse.     And  if  the  individual, 


248  NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE. 

following  the  instructions  of  Methodism,  should  persevere 
in  his  cries  for  mercy,  until  he  obtains  the  evidence  of  his 
acceptance  with  God,  as  is  the  case  with  thousands,  they 
would  either  call  in  question  the  genuineness  of  his  expe- 
rience, or  explain  it  by  saying,  that  he  might  have  obtained 
the  favour  of  God  at  any  previous  period,  just  as  easily  as 
when  he  did — that  his  distress  and  prayers,  so  far  from 
conducing  to  his  conversion,  only  postponed  it — that  he 
was  all  this  time  fighting  against  God,  and  that  had  he 
done  at  first  what  he  did  at  last,  he  might  have  obtained 
religion  without  a  single  pang. 

Much  of  the  writing  and  preaching  of  modern  Calvinism 
is  decidedly  calculated  to  make  the  impression,  that  the 
moral  condition  of  the  awakened  sinner  in  deep  distress 
and  crying  for  mercy,  is  worse  than  that  of  the  careless 
sinner.  Says  Mr.  Walton,  in  his  "  Narrative  of  a  Revival 
'in  the  Third  Presbyterian  Church  of  Baltimore,"  "In 
giving  directions  to  awakened  sinners,  we  are  sometimes 
led  into  error  by  a  species  of  false  charity,  thinking  that 
as  they  are  now  under  so  much  religious  concern,  their 
hearts  are  not  so  wicked  as  the  Bible  represents  the  hearts 
of  all  imconverted  persons  to  be."  Again :  "  The  light  of 
conviction,  then,  which  brings  them  [the  holiness,  justice, 
and  sovereignty  of  God]  into  view,  so  far  from  lessening 
his  enmity,  increases  it,  and  it  continues  to  increase  to  the 
last  moment  before  the  sinner  is  subdued.  It  is  true, 
therefore,  to  say  that  the  convicted,  as  well  as  the  careless 
sinner,  is  waxing  worse  and  worse,  and  that  his  sins  are  in- 
creasing in  a  tremendous  ratio." — pp.  24,  25. 

From  these  views  it  clearly  follows,  that  the  convicted 
sinner  is  entitled  to  no  sympathy  on  account  of  his  great  dis- 
tress of  mind,  and  that  any  manifestation  of  sympathy  toward 
him,  more  than  is  displayed  toward  the  most  careless  sinner, 
?nust  be  of  dangerous  tendency,  being  calculated  to  make  the 
impression  on  his  mind  that  his  distress  is  not  wholly  the  re- 


NEW  DIVINITY MEANS  OF  GRACE.  249 

suit  of  rebellion,  and  that  his  present  state  of  mind  is  more 
hopeful  and  interesting  than  that  by  which  it  was  preceded. 

We  would  probably  never  have  thought  of  drawing  this 
very  obvious  inference,  had  we  not  found  it  gravely  as- 
serted as  a  doctrine.  "  A  note  of  commiseration,"  says 
Mr.  Duffield,  "  a  tacit  acknowledgment  of  any  other  ina- 
bility than  a  wilful  refusal  to  come  to  Christ,  and  a  direct- 
ing to  means  which  can  be  used,  as  though  faith  and  re- 
pentance were  not,  and  might  not  be  instantly  exercised, 
will  blunt  the  edge  of  the  keenest  convictions.  The  sin- 
ner and  his  counsellor  may  both  weep  together,  and  sing 
a  song  of  lamentation  over  the  imbecility  of  his  nature, 
and  his  wretched  condition,  but  his  sense  of  guilt  will  ne- 
cessarily be  impaired  by  such  a  process." — p.  347. 

Mr.  Finney  is  tremendously  severe  on  those  who  mani- 
fest sympathy  for  the  sinner  in  distress  of  mind.  He  as- 
sumes that  the  sympathy  is  false  and  misplaced,  which  is 
indeed  the  case  if  New  Divinity  be  true,  as  the  sinner 
can  put  a  stop  to  his  anxiety  at  any  moment  he  pleases. 
The  kind  of  sympathy  which  he  feels  for  such,  is  thus 
expressed :  "  The  sinner  may  whine  and  cry,  '  O  how  I  am 
sorrowing  and  seeking  Jesus  !'  It  is  no  such  thing.  Jesus 
is  seeking  you." — Lectures,  p.  328. 

I  cannot  express  the  horror  I  feel  at  this  sentiment.  It 
is  utterly  and  eternally  alien  to  the  gospel  of  Christ.  That 
system  of  tenderness  and  good  will,  requires  us  to  weep 
with  those  that  weep,  and  rejoice  with  those  that  rejoice. 

11* 


250  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

I 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

CALVINISM. 

At  the  outset  of  this  discussion,  it  was  stated  that  the 
New  School  divines  have  not  abandoned  the  leading  pecu- 
liarities of  Calvinism ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  hold  to  them 
as  firmly  as  those  of  the  Old  School ;  and  that  the  differ- 
ences of  opinion  between  these  parties  are  to  be  sought 
in  the  theory  by  which  the  former  attempt  to  reconcile 
the  prominent  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  with  the  offer  of 
salvation  to  all  men,  and  the  obligation  of  all  men  to  repent 
and  believe  the  gospel.  Having  exhibited  fully  the  pe- 
culiarities of  New  Divinity,  and  proved  their  want  of 
agreement  with  the  oracles  of  God,  we  now  propose  to 
substantiate  the  declaration,  that  those  who  advocate  them, 
'  are,  at  the  same  time,  decided  Calvinists. 

The  importance  of  this  part  of  the  argument  arises  out 
of  a  wide-spread  misapprehension  as  to  the  doctrinal 
position  occupied  by  this  class  of  theologians,  in  relation 
to  Calvinism  and  Methodism.  There  are  thousands,  who 
suppose,  that  they  have  entirely  abandoned  the  former, 
and  nearly,  if  not  quite,  come  over  to  the  latter. 

But  the  reader  will  not  be  astonished  at  the  prevalence 
of  this  delusive  supposition,  when  he  takes  into  consider- 
ation the  causes  to  which  it  may  be  referred.  It  is  at- 
tributable, in  part,  to  the  fact,  that  they  have  been,  and  are 
still,  in  the  habit  of  keeping  Calvinism  out  of  sight  in  their 
public  mmistrations.  This  practice,  however,  is  not  pecu- 
liar to  the  New  School  party.  There  are  popular  preachers 
■who  have  distinguished  themselves  by  their  opposition  to 
their  New  School  brethren,  and  advocated  their  separatioa 
from  the  church,  of  whose  preaching,  very  sensible  hear- 
ers, in  pretty  constant  attendance,  affirm  that  it  is  rarely 
distinguishable,  so  far  as  doctrine  is  concerned,  from  that 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  251 

of  the  Methodists.  On  this  point  we  can  adduce  hicrh 
authority.  The  late  Dr.  Porter,  president  of  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Andover,  and  an  eminent  minister  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  faith,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Beecher,  which  may  be 
found  in  a  work,  entitled,  "  Harvey  on  Moral  Agency," 
complains  thus : — 

"  There  is  a  large  number  of  orthodox  ministers  in  New- 
England  who,  from  family  alliances,  from  constitutional 
delicacy  of  temper,  &c.,  &c.,  as  I  hinted  above,  will  tem- 
porize and  make  smooth  work,  from  an  honest  conviction 
that  a  full  disclosure  of  the  truth  would  alienate  their 
hearers.  The  bitter  revilings  of  base  men  have  been  gradu- 
ally and  insensibly  leading  Calvinistic  ministers  to  hide 
their  colours  and  recede  from  their  ground.  Dr.  Sprinf's 
Church  at  Newburyport,  Park-street,  especially  in  Dr. 
Griffin's  day,  and  a  iew  others,  have  stood  like  the  Mace- 
donian phalanx.  But  others  have  gone  backward.  Cau- 
tion, CAUTION,  has  been  the  watchword  of  ministers. 
When  they  do  preach  the  old  standard  doctrines,  it  is  in 
so  guarded  a  phraseology  that  they  are  not  understood  to 
be  the  same.  You  know  as  well  as  I;. but,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken,  thirty  years  ago  ten  sermons  were  preached  in 
New-England  on  total  depravity  and  election,  to  one  that 
is  preached  on  these  subjects  now." — p.  174. 

This  language  needs  no  comment.  It  fully  confirms 
the  conviction  previously  derived  from  what  we  have 
"  heard  and  seen."  And  we  read,  with  no  little  surprise, 
in  the  Life  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  the  late  eminent 
Baptist  minister  in  England,  a  passage  imputing  to  that 
great  man  the  course  which  Dr.  Porter  condemns.  The 
biographer  says,  "  His  system  of  theological  tenets  [creed 
is  an  ill-favoured  term)  was  strictly  orthodox,  on  the  model 
of  what  has  come  to  be  denominated  moderate  Calvinism. 
With  the  other  conspicuous  points — the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  atonement,  and  justifica- 


252  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

tion  by  faith  alone,  he  held  the  more  distinctively  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine  of  predestination,  though  I  cannot  answer 
for  the  precise  terms  in  which  he  would  have  stated  it ; 
but  I  presume  he  would  have  accepted  those  employed  in 
the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  preaching  he 
very  rarely  made  any  reference  to  that  doctrine,  and  his 
recognition  of  it  by  implication  was  too  indistinct  for  toler- 
ation from  the  rigidly  Calvinistic  hearers  of  any  preacher 
not  privileged  by  talents  and  public  favour  to  bear  down  all 
censorial  pretensions." — HalVs  Works,  vol.  iii,  p.  110. 

We  could  almost  have  wished,  in  behalf  of  the  memory 
of  a  great  man,  and  of  the  credit  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
that  this  statement  had  been  withheld.  He  held  the  Cal- 
vinistic doctrine  of  predestination  to  be  a  part  of  the  gospel 
revealed  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  committed  to  his  ministers. 
'  It  was  a  leading  tenet  in  his  denominational  standard  of 
faith ;  and  yet  in  preaching  he  very  rarely  referred  to  it, 
and  when  his  language  implied  it,  the  implication  was  so 
indistinct,  that  had  it  not  been  for  his  great  talents  and 
popularity,  his  more  consistent  brethren  would  have  made 
his  course  the  subject  of  censure. 

We  are  further  informed,  on  the  next  page,  that, — "  He 
was  therefore  exempt  from  all  those  restrictions,  in  respect 
to  the  mode  of  presenting  and  urging  the  overtures  of  re- 
demption, which  have  been  imposed  on  some  good  men  of 
the  Calvinistic  faith  by  a  concern  for  systematic  consist- 
ency. He  took  the  utmost  liberty  in  his  strain  of  inculca- 
tion ;  exhorting,  inviting,  entreating,  expostulating,  re- 
monstrating, in  language  of  nearly  the  same  tenor  as  that 
which  might  be  employed  by  an  Arminian  preacher ;  with 
the  exception,  of  course,  of  that  notion  of  free-will,  which 
recurs  with  such  laborious  iteration  in  the  preaching  of 
that  order,  and  which  was  excluded  from  his  faith  equally 
by  theological  and  philosophical  reasons." 

It  is  not  intimated  here  that  he  took  pains  to  contradict 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  253 

"that  notion  of  free-will."  He  probably  was  as  silent 
respecting  it,  as  he  was  respecting  the  doctrine  of  pre- 
destination. And,  by  his  earnestness  in  urging  the  invita- 
tions and  entreaties  of  the  gospel,  he  doubtless  made  on 
the  mind  of  his  audiences  the  impression,  that  he  fully 
believed  in  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  free-will,  which  those 
invitations  and  exhortations  so  obviously  imply. 

The  biographer  goes  on  to  say, — "  This  nonadvertence 
in  his  sermons  to  the  Calvinistic  tenet,  was  not  from  any 
secret  consciousness  that  the  belief  of  it  is  essentially 
incongruous  with  his  free  strain  of  inculcation  ;  it  was  not 
that  he  might  enjoy  a  license  for  inconsistency,  through 
the  device  of  keeping  one  of  two  incompatible  things  out 
of  sight ;  but  he  judged  that  neither  the  doctrine  itself,  nor 
the  process  of  reasoning  to  prove  the  belief  of  it,  consistent 
with  the  most  unrestricted  language  of  exhortation,  could 
be  made  a  profitable  part  of  popular  instruction.  He  deem- 
ed it  authority  enough  for  his  practice,  independently  of 
all  abstracted  reasoning  on  the  subject,  that  he  had  the 
example  of  the  divinely-inspired  preachers  urging  the  de- 
mands of  the  gospel  on  the  unbelievers  and  the  wicked,  in 
the  most  unmeasured  terms  of  exhortation,  the  predes- 
tinating decrees  of  Heaven  set  out  of  the  question ;  and 
that  in  modern  experience  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  those 
preachers  of  the  Calvinistic  school  (for  one  memorable 
example,  Whitefield)  who  have  nevertheless  availed  them- 
selves of  this  freedom  to  the  utmost  extent,  have  been 
incomparably  more  successful  in  effecting  the  great  object 
of  preaching,  than  those  who  have,  somewhat  presump- 
tuously, charged  themselves  with  so  much  responsibility 
respecting  the  unknown  determination  of  the  Almighty, 
that  they  must  not  call  men  to  faith  and  repentance  lest 
they  should  contravene  his  sovereign  purposes." 

Mr.  Hall's  reason  for  liis  "  nonadvertence,  in  his  ser- 
mons, to  the  Calvinistic  tenet,"  is  assigned  : — "  He  judged 


254  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

that  neither  the  doctrine  itself,  nor  the  process  of  reason- 
ing" by  which  the  doctrine  is  supposed  to  be  reconciled 
with  the  language  of  unrestricted  exhortation,  "  could  be 
made  a  profitable  part  of  popular  instruction."  The  au- 
thority which  he  claimed  for  his  practice  in  this  particular 
is  also  referred  to.  He  had  the  example  of  the  "  inspired 
preachers  urging  the  demands  of  the  gospel"  on  the  wicked 
without  any  reference  to  the  "  predestinating  decrees  of 
Heaven,"  and  also  that  of  the  most  successful  Calvinistic 
ministers — Whitefield,  for  instance. 

We  cannot  let  this  opportunity  pass  of  vindicating  the 
Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  its  inspired  publishers,  from 
the  imputation  here  cast  on  them.  Shall  it  be  said  by 
Christian  ministers,  that  doctrines  which  Christ  has  re- 
•  vealed,  especially  the  doctrine  which  declares  his  fixed 
purposes  respecting  those  to  whom  the  minister  is  sent, 
are  unprofitable  topics  for  public  instruction?  And  shall 
they  be  laid  aside  on  such  a  pretext  ?  Has  the  Author  of 
inspiration  made  this  distinction  respecting  the  doctrines 
which  he  has  committed  to  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  ? 
Or  has  he  revealed,  under  the  impression  that  it  would  be 
profitable  for  instruction  in  righteousness,  a  doctrine  which 
will  not  stand  the  test  of  experiment,  and  which  his  min- 
isters are,  therefore,  under  the  necessity  of  keeping  out  of 
sight  ?  And  if  it  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  fallible  men 
to  determine  whether  it  be  profitable  or  not  to  preach  a 
particular  doctrine,  we  should  like  to  know  what  security 
there  is,  that  many  other  doctrines  will  not  be  involved 
in  the  same  condemnation  ?  AVe  declare  our  opinion, 
that  a  more  dangerous  and  presumptuous  principle,  it 
would  be  difficult  to  advance  ! 

And  with  respect  to  the  alleged  example  of  the  apostles, 
we  deny  that  they  preached  repentance  without  reference 
to  "  the  predestinating  decrees  of  Heaven."  They  inces- 
santly appealed  to  those  decrees  respecting  the  righteous 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  255 

and  the  wicked,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  sinner 
could  be  received  into  the  favour  of  God,  as  the  great 
motives  to  repentance  and  obedience.  It  is  true  it  would 
have  been  silly  enough  for  them  to  urge  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  predestination  and  decrees,  as  a  motive  to  re- 
pentance, because  it  contains  no  such  motive.  If  God 
has  decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  it  occurs  to  us 
that,  before  any  man  is  authorized  to  repent  of  any  of  his 
actions,  he  ought  to  be  assured  that  God  has  repented 
of  his  having  decreed  them,  or  he  might  be  convicted  of 
repenting  that  he  had  done  the  will  of  God.  This  doc- 
trine the  apostles  have  so  completely  "  set  out  of  the 
question,"  that  it  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  their  writings  ; 
nor  do  we  wonder  that  those  Calvinistic  ministers  have 
been  the  most  successful,  who  have  said  the  least  about  it. 
Mr.  Hall  very  justly  claims  the  authority  of  Whitefield's 
example  in  this  matter.  For,  while  in  his  writings,  he 
frequently  appeals  to  his  success^  as  proof  of  the  truth  of 
his  Calvinistic  tenets,  he  says,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wesley, 
"  For  Christ's  sake,  if  possible,  dear  sir,  never  speak 
against  election  in  your  sermons.  No  one  can  say  that  I 
ever  mentioned  it  in  my  public  discourses,  whatever  my  pri- 
vate sentiments  may  he."  Memoirs  of  White^eld,  p.  57. 
Mr.  Wesley's  open  and  undisguised  opposition  to  Calvin- 
ism, brought  out  Mr.  Whitefield  in  defence  of  it;  and  it 
is  easily  gathered  from  all  the  biographers  of  the  latter, 
that  just  in  proportion  as  he  advocated  Calvinism,  he 
restricted  both  his  popularity  and  usefulness.  Now,  we 
have  no  hesitancy  in  asserting,  that  in  Europe  and  Ameri- 
ca, there  are  thousands  of  Calvinistic  ministers,  whose 
practice,  in  this  respect,  is  guided  by  the  principle  to 
which  Mr.  Hall  conformed  his  preaching. 

Dr.  Skinner,  in  a  sermon  preached  at  the  opening  of 
the  Mercer-street  Presbyterian  church,  in  New-York,  en- 
titled, "  Thy  Kingdom  Come,"  strongly  recommends  the 


256  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

practice  of  laying  aside  doctrinal  peculiarities  in  public 
instruction.  He  distinguishes  between  sectarian  and  sub- 
stantial Christianity,  and  maintains,  that  Christians,  in 
their  efforts  to  evangelize  the  world,  "  should  seek  to 
propagate  substantial  Christianity,  rather  than  any  secta- 
rian form  of  it."  He  explains  his_  meaning  by  saying, 
"  Among  the  various  sects  of  true  Christians,  there  are  of 
course  peculiarities  which  distinguish  and  unhappily  di- 
vide them  from  one .  another ;  and  there  is  also  a  common 
faith,  which  distinguishes  them  from  all  the  world,  but 
which  indissolubly  unites  them  to  one  another,  and  to  the 
great  family  of  God  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Their  com- 
mon faith  is  substantial,  and  their  party  peculiarities  are 
sectarian  Christianity.  My  position  is,  that  in  their  efforts 
to  spread  the  gospel  among  mankind,  Christians  should 
seek  to  propagate,  not  the  latter,  but  the  former — their 
common  faith,  not  their  sectarian  peculiarities — what 
they  agree,  not  what  they  differ  in — what  unites,  not 
what  divides  them.  To  be,  if  possible,  yet  more  explicit, 
I  mean  to  say,  and  shall  attempt  to  prove,  that  their  ob- 
ject should  be  to  propagate,  not  both  what  they  agree  and 
what  they  differ  in ;  but  what  they  agree  in,  exclusively  of 
what  they  differ  in."  He  then  adds,  in  a  note,  "  It  were 
well,  I  think,  if  even  ordinary  discourses  from  the  pulpit 
were  restricted  to  these  undisputed  points.  These  points 
are  sufficiently  numerous  and  comprehensive  to  engross 
all  the  time  and  strength  of  preachers  ;  and  it  is  doubtful 
if  there  is  a  promiscuous  congregation  on  earth  that  are  not 
liable  to  be  more  injured  Xha^n  projitedhy  polemical  sermons." 
He  here  insists  on  the  unprofitableness  of  preaching 
sectarian  peculiarities,  as  a  reason  for  keeping  them 
back.  True,  he  says  *'  polemical  sermons,"  and  thus 
changes  the  issue  ;  but  the  reader  need  not  be  misled,  as 
he  is  professedly  assigning  a  reason  why  public  teaching 
should  be  "  restricted"  to  "  undisputed  points." 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  257 

A  more  absurd  and  impracticable  maxim  could  hardly 
be  conceived.  Were  the  author  of  the  sermon  to  act  upon 
it,  he  would  not  attempt  to  explain  the  nature  of  human  de- 
pravity ;  for  then,  he  would  be  introducing  a  point  disputed 
between  the  two  parties  of  his  own  church,  and  between 
his  own  party  and  the  Methodists.  He  would  not,  for  the 
same  reason,  explain  the  nature  of  conversion,  or  regen- 
eration, or  the  extent  of  the  atonement,  or  its  application. 
Indeed,  the  sermon  itself  is  a  violation  of  this  maxim,  it 
being  devoted  to  the  settlement  of  questions  now  agitating 
the  church  of  which  he  is  a  minister.  But  it  answers 
one  purpose  admirably  :  it  furnishes  a  very  plausible  apolo- 
gy for  the  concealment  of  those  "  sectarian  peculiarities" 
which  it  may  be  inconvenient  to  disclose. 

This  same  principle  of  ministerial  prudence  is  con- 
tended for  by  Mr.  Duffield.  He  says,  "  It  is  of  moment 
that  we  learn  to  discriminate  between  the  facts  of  Scrip- 
ture and  tlie  doctrines  of  a  system  of  theology."  And 
again,  "  The  Arminian  and  the  Calvinist  agree  in  many 
essential  fads  of  Christianity ;  but  how  widely  do  they 
differ  in  their  systems,  and  that  difference  originates  in 
their  philosophy.  If  ministers  will  preach  their  systems, 
they  must  of  necessity  preach  much  that  is  their  own,  and 
not  the  word  of  God." — p.  563. 

It  is  fairly  inferrible  from  this  language  that  Mr.  D. 
not  only  feels  authorized  to  decline  preaching  his  "  sys- 
tem of  theology,"  but  also  obliged  to  decline  preaching  it, 
inasmuch  as  he  can  preach  the  "  essential  facts  of  Chris- 
tianity" without  preaching  his  system,  and  he  cannot 
preach  his  system  without  preaching  much  that  is  his 
"  o\vn,  and  not  the  word  of  God." 

Whatever  the  "Arminian  and  the  Calvinist"  may 
agree  in,  there  seems  to  be  this  difference  between 
them, — the  Calvinist  can  distinguish  the  peculiarities  of 
his  theological  system  from  the  great  "  facts  of  Christiani- 


258  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

ty,"  and  style  his  doctrines  "  sectarian  peculiarities,"  and 
exclude  them  from  his  ministrations,  as  a  matter  of  duty, 
on  the  ground  that  it  is  "  unprofitable"  to  make  them  a 
"part  of  popular  instruction;"  whereas,  the  Arminian, 
professes  to  believe,  that  the  Scriptures  teach  doctrines 
as  well  as  facts,  and  to  derive  all  the  doctrines  of  his 
theological  system  from  the  word  of  God.  He  identifies 
them  with  the  gospel  itself,  so  far  as  he  understands  it ; 
and  he  no  more  dare  pronounce  any  of  them  unprofit- 
able, as  topics  of  pulpit  instruction,  or  to  withhold  them, 
than  he  dare  pronounce  unprofitable  or  conceal,  the  un- 
doubted messages  of  the  Most  High. 

It  would  be,  at  least,  a  curious  inquiry,  how  Mr.  D. 
would  run  the  line  of  discrimination,  between  facts  and 
doctrines.  So  far  as  we  can  see,  to  preach  nothing  but 
what  may  be  called,  by  way  of  distinction,  the  facts  of 
Scripture,  would  be  to  confine  our  pulpit  instructions  to 
such  statements  as  these  : — There  was  a  man  called  Jesus 
Christ.  He  was  crucified  by  his  enemies.  After  three 
days  he  rose  from  the  dead,  &c.  To  attempt  a  statement 
of  the  connection  between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  sal- 
vation of  sinners  ;  or  to  take  up  the  question  whether  his 
death  was  designed  to  render  salvation  attainable  by  all, 
or  merely  a  part  of  mankind,  would  be  to  plunge  at  once 
into  the  Socinian,  Calvinistic,  or  Arminian  system  of  the- 
ology. But  he  is  not  in  trouble  on  this  point,  as  are  other 
men.  He  can  resolve  doctrines  into  facts,  and  facts  into 
doctrines,  just  as  they  meet  his  approbation  or  disap- 
probation. 

The  adoption  and  observance  of  this  strange  code  of 
ministerial  ethics,  is,  of  itself,  sufficient  to  account  for  the 
general  impression,  that  Calvinism  has  been  given  up  by 
the  Calvinistic  churches. 

But  there  are  other  causes.  According  to  Dr.  Por- 
ter, when  they  profess  to  state  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism, 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  .  259 

"  they  state  them  in  so  guarded  a  phraseology  that  they 
are  not  understood  to  be  the  same."  How  often  is  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination  represented  to  be 
this, — that  God  is  a  sovereign — that  he  has  purposes — 
that  he  has  a  plan — just  as  though  Arminians  denied  these 
propositions.  The  natural  inference  from  such  state- 
ments, formal  or  implied,  is  that  the  doctrine  has  been 
caricatured  when  stated  that  "  God  from  all  eternity  did, 
by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely 
and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass." 

The  practice  of  issuing  "  short  creeds"  has  also  con- 
tributed to  this  state  of  things.  These  creeds  generally 
contain  a  number  of  points  of  doctrine  in  which  Calvin- 
ists  and  Arminians  agree,  with  one  or  perhaps  two  articles 
in  which  Calvinism  is  so  cautiously  introduced,  as  to  es- 
cape the  observation  of  nearly  all  to  whom  the  creed  is 
presented  j  and  yet  there  is  enough  to  preserve  its  ortho- 
doxy, and  to  lead  to  the  entire  system  of  Calvinism. 

Again :  They  frequently  complain  that  they  are  misre- 
presented when  their  doctrines  are  imputed  to  them,  and 
thus  the  impression  is  made  that  they  do  not  hold  these 
doctrines.  Dr.  Miller,  of  Princeton,  says,  "  The  truth 
is,  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  writer  or  speaker  who  has 
fairly  distinguished  himself  by  opposing  Calvinism,  who 
has  fairly  represented  the  system,  or  who  really  appeared 
to  understand  it." 

Dr.  Beecher,  in  his  Lectures  on  Skepticism,  says, 
"  I  have  never  seen  or  heard  a  correct  statement  of  the 
Calvinistic  system  from  an  opponent."  Now,  when  it  is 
taken  into  the  account,  that  Arminians  usually  represent 
their  doctrines  in  the  very  language  of  their  own  stand 
ards,  what  is  the  natural  inference,  but  that  they  do  not 
believe  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism  1 

He  gives  an  example  of  the  misrepresentation  of  which 
he  complains.     "  Consult,"  says  he,  "  almost  any  oracle 


260  NEW   DIVINITV CALVINISAf. 

of  opposition  as  to  what  is  Calvinism,  and  the  response 
will  be,  Calvinism  is  that  horrible  system  which  teaches 
that  God  has  foreordained  and  fixed,  by  irresistible  omnip- 
otence, whatsoever  comes  to  pass;  that  he  has  made  a 
very  small  number  on  purpose  to  be  saved,  and  all  the 
rest  on  purpose  to  damn  them;  that  an  atonement  by 
weight  and  measure  has  been  made  for  the  elect  only, 
but  which  is  offered  to  the  non-elect  on  conditions  impos- 
sible to  be  complied  with,  and  they  are  damned  for  not 
accepting  what  did  not  belong  to  them,  and  could  not  have 
saved  them  if  they  had  received  it ;  and  that  infants  as  well 
as  adults  are  included  in  the  decree  of  reprobation,  and 
that  hell  is  no  doubt  paved  with  their  bones." 

He  adds,  "  It  is  needless  to  say  that  falsehoods  more 
.  absolute  and  entire  were  never  stereotyped  in  the  foundry 
of  the  father  of  lies,  or  with   greater   industry   worked 
off  for  gratuitous  distribution  from  age  to  age." 

Now,  this  language  is  calculated  to  make  the  impres 
sion,  that  none  of  the  doctrines  included  in  the  foregoing 
example,  belongs  to  the  system  of  Calvinism ;  and  yet 
most,  if  not  all,  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  Calvinism  are 
included  in  it.  Let  any  one  take  the  Saybrook  Platform, 
or  the  Presbyterian,  or  the  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
compare  these  alleged  falsehoods  with  what  they  say  on 
the  subjects  of  predestination,  election,  atonement,  ability, 
and  the  future  condition  of  elect  infants,  and  he  will  be 
able  to  estimate  properly  the  disavowal  of  Dr.  B.,  and 
likewise  the  censure  with  which  he  assails  his  opponents. 

Besides,  he  does  not  profess  to  have  quoted  these  re- 
presentations from  any  Arminian  author.  The  truth  is 
this, — he  has  thrown  in  some  phraseology  which  he  can 
contradict  with  plausibility,  and  which  Arininians  never 
impute  to  them,  such  as,  "  that  hell  is  no  doubt  paved 
with  their  bones" — the  bones  of  infants — and  then  applies 
his  contradiction  to  the  whole. 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  261 

Again :  It  is  frequently  denied  by  the  members  of  Cal- 
vinistic  churches,  that  those  churches  are  Calvinistic  ; 
whether  ignorantly  or  intentionally,  it  is  not  for  us  to  de- 
termine. Sometimes  the  ministers  of  those  churches  de- 
ny that  they  are  Calvinists.  We  have  often  heard  of 
such  cases,  and  are  able  to  adduce  one  instance  as 
proof.  Robert  Hall,  in  a  correspondence  with  the  Broad- 
mead  church,  respecting  his  sentiments,  says,  "  In  the 
second  place,  I  am  not  a  Calvinist,  in  the  strict  and  pro- 
per sense  of  that  term." — 3d  vol.  p.  19.  Again:  "On 
being  asked,"  says  his  biographer,  "  whether  he  was  an 
Arminian  or  a  Calvinist,  he  said, '  Neither,  but  I  believe  I  re- 
cede further  from  Arminianism  than  Calvinism.'  " — p.  35. 

It  is  due  to  Mr.  Hall  to  believe  that  he  did  not  intend  to 
deny  that  he  held  any  of  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism.  He 
meant,  no  doubt,  that  on  some  points  he  differed  from 
more  rigid  Calvinists.  Probably,  the  majority  of  those 
Calvinists  who  deny  that  they  are  such,  are  entitled  to 
the  benefit  of  the  same  explanation.  The  question  be- 
fore us,  is  not  the  morality  of  such  declarations,  but  the 
probable  effect  of  them,  on  the  mind  of  the  public. 

But  the  principal  cause  of  the  misconception  to  which 
we  are  adverting,  is  foimd  in  their  preaching  a  "  free  sal- 
vation." There  are  probably  more  sermons  preached  ex- 
pressly on  this  subject,  and  professedly  in  support  of  the 
doctrine  at  the  present  day,  in  Calvinistic  than  in  Arminian 
churches.  And  the  public  have  not  yet  come  to  under- 
stand that  the  free  salvation  of  the  Methodists  and  that  of 
Calvinists  are  widely  different — that  the  free  salvation  of 
the  latter,  is  one  which  they  can  reconcile  with  the  fore- 
ordination  of  all  actions  and  events,  and  the  election  of  a 
definite  number  to  eternal  life,  and  reprobation  of  the  rest. 
In  some  instances,  however,  they  go  so  far  in  their  state- 
ments of  the  freeness  of  salvation,  as  to  directly  contradict 
their  creed. 


262  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

Add  to  these  the  consideration  that  the  Old  School 
Calvinists  pubUcly  charge  those  of  the  New  School  with 
abandoning  Calvinism,  and  becoming  Arminians,  and  the 
fact  which  we  have  given  as  our  reason  for  adducing 
proofs  that  they  are  Calvinists,  is  abundantly  account- 
ed for. 

Some  may  be  offended  with  this  article,  supposing  that 
it  charges  the  New  School  portion  of  the  Calvinistic  min- 
istry with  a  want  of  strict  honesty  in  the  publication  of 
their  sentiments.  This  is  not  our  object.  We  have  sta- 
ted facts,  and  cannot  be  answerable  for  inferences.  We 
cannot  deny,  however,  that  the  course  which  some  of 
them  have  pursued,  has  often  reminded  us  of  the  dissimu- 
lation of  Peter  on  a  certain  occasion,  for  which  Paul 
sharply  rebuked  him.  Nor  should  any  of  them  be  too 
.sensitive,  when  any  thing  is  said  which  implies  that  they 
have  committed  a  sin,  since  the  most  of  them  disclaim 
with  emphasis,  not  only  the  Antinomian  doctrine  of  per- 
fection, which  dispenses  with  the  obligation  to  keep  the 
law,  but  likewise  the  doctrine  of  Scriptural  perfection, 
which  consists  in  strictly  keeping  the  law.  If  they  pur- 
posely and  systematically  teach  that  neither  themselves, 
nor  any  other  merely  human  being,  ever  lived  without  sin, 
need  they  be  surprised  or  indignant  if  they  are  sometimes 
suspected  of  committing  a  sin  to  which  circumstances  so 
strongly  tempt  them? 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  263 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

CALVINISM     CONTINUED. 

\ 

We  now  enter  upon  the  task  of  proving  that  the  public 
teachers  of  New  Divinity  are  Calvinists. 

In  the  first  place,  a  great  number  of  them  are  ministers 
of  a  Church— the  Presbyterian  Church— which  requires 
them,  in  their  ordination  vow,  to  affirm  their  belief  in,  and 
pledge  themselves  to  the  support  of,  the  doctrines  of  Cal- 
vinism. They  were  required  in  their  ordination,  to  answer 
these  questions,  among  others,  in  the  affirmative,  "  Do  you 
sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of 
this  Church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?"  "  Do  you  promise  to  be  zealous 
and  faithful  in  maintaining  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  and 
the  purity  and  peace  of  the  Church,  whatever  persecution 
or  opposition  may  arise  unto  you  on  that  account  V'—West' 
minster  Confession  of  Faith,  p.  378. 

As  this  Confession  of  Faith  may  be  conveniently  acces- 
sible to  but  a  very  small  portion  of  our  readers,  we  will 
quote  some  of  its  decidedly  Calvinistic  passages. 

With  respect  to  the  divine  decrees  it  says,  "  God,  from 
all  eternity,  did  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass." 

Again  :  "  Although  God  knows  whatsoever  may  or  can 
come  to  pass,  upon  all  supposed  conditions,  yet  hath  he 
not  decreed  any  thing  because  he  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as 
that  which  would  come  to  pass  upon  such  conditions. 

"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  ever- 
lasting life,  and  others  foreordained  to  everlasting  death. 

"  These  angels  and  men,  thus  predestinated  and  fore- 


264  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

ordained,  are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed,  and 
their  number  is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot  be 
either  increased  or  diminished." 

3^he  reason  by  which  the  choice  of  Jehovah  was  in- 
fluenced in  predestinating  some  to  life  and  others  to  death 
is  thus  stated  :^ 

"  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life, 
God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  accord- 
ing to  his  eternal  and  immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret 
counsel  and  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath  chosen  in 
Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free  grace 
and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,  or 
perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  thing  in  the  creature, 
as  conditions,  or  causes  moving  him  thereunto  ;  and  all  to 
the  praise  of  his  glorious  grace." 

,  "  The  rest  of  mankind  God  was  pleased,  according  to 
the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby  he  ex- 
tendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,  for  the  glory  of 
his  sovereign  power  over  his  creatures,  to  pass  by,  and  to 
ordain  them  to  dishonour  and  wrath  for  their  sin,  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  justice." 

With  respect  to  the  vouchsafement  of  the  necessary 
means  of  salvation,  this  creed  says,  "  As  God  hath  ap- 
pointed the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal 
and  most  free  purpose  of  his  will,  foreordained  all  the 
means  thereunto.  Wherefore  they  who  are  elected  being 
fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ ;  are  effectually 
called  unto  faith  in  Christ  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due 
season  ;  are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  kept  by  his 
power  through  faith  unto  salvation.  Neither  are  any  other 
redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified,  adopted, 
sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only." — Chap,  iii,  p.  15. 

This  doctrine  of  election  and  rejection  is  thus  applied 
to  infants,  "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regener- 
ated and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  265 

when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth.  So  also  are  all 
other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word." 

Of  the  non-elect  in  general  it  is  said,  "  Others  not 
elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry  of 
the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  therefore 
cannot  be  saved  :  much  less  can  men,  not  professing  the 
Christian  religion,  be  saved  in  any  other  way  whatsoever, 
be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to 
the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do 
profess  ;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may  is  very 
pernicious,  and  to  be  detested." — Chap,  x,  p.  33. 

On  the  "  Perseverance  of  the  Saints"  the  Confession 
runs  thus,  "They  whom  God  hath  accepted  in  his  Be- 
loved, effectually  called  and  sanctified  by  his  Spirit,  can 
neither  totally  nor  finally  fall  away  from  the  state  of  grace ; 
but  shall  certainly  persevere  therein  to  the  end,  and  be 
finally  saved. 

"  This  perseverance  of  the  saints  depends,  not  upon 
their  free  will,  but  upon  the  immutability  of  the  decree 
of  election,  flowing  from  the  free  and  unchangeable  love 
of  God  the  Father ;  upon  the  efficacy  of  the  merit  and  in- 
tercession of  Jesus  Christ ;  the  abiding  of  the  Spirit  and 
of  the  seed  of  God  within  them ;  and  the  nature  of  the 
covenant  of  grace  ;  from  all  which  ariseth  also  the  cer- 
tainty and  infallibility  thereof." — Chap,  xvi,  p.  76. 

Will  it  be  said  that  in  receiving  and  adopting  this  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  they  did  not  purpose  or  profess  to  receive 
all  its  doctrines,  but,  merely,  as  containing  the  system  of 
doctrine  taught  in  the  holy  Scriptures  1  This  ground 
some  of  them  have  taken,  and  we  readily  admit  that  they 
differ  from  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  some  points  ;  for  in- 
stance, on  the  doctrines  of  imputation,  ability,  atonement, 
the  nature  of  depravity,  regeneration,  holiness,  and  the  in 
12 


266  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

fluences  of  the  Spirit ;  but  the  doctrines  which  we  have 
quoted  from  the  Confession  of  Faith  constitute  its  distinct- 
ive peculiarities ;  and  to  suppose  that  in  adopting  this  creed 
they  so  played  upon  the  terms  "  containing"  and  "  system" 
as  to  exclude  and  reject  the  very  doctrines  by  which  it  is 
distinguished  from  the  creeds  of  other  sects  which  are 
directly  opposed  to  it,  would  be  to  attribute  to  them  a 
course  which  would  disgrace  even  Jesuitism  itself.  By 
such  a  mode  of  adopting  and  supporting  denominational 
standards,  I  might  become  a  Presbyterian  or  even  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  clergjnnan  to-morrow,  provided  there  were 
nothing  in  the  way  of  my  reception  but  my  opinions.  All 
that  would  be  necessary  is,  that  the  creed  presented  for 
my  adoption  should  contain  a  sufficient  number  of  doctrinal 
announcements  for  me  to  extract  a  systetn  from  them.  I 
need  not  receive  it  as  not  containing  very  dangerous  errors 
or  as  expressing  my  opinions  very  clearly.  I  might  look 
upon  its  language  as  quite  antiquated  and  obsolete.  It 
would  be  enough  that  it  barely  contained  my  system,  which 
I  might  make  general  or  particular — to  include  but  few  or 
a  greater  number  of  propositions,  according  to  the  quantity 
of  materials  on  hand.  It  is,  therefore,  the  judgment  of 
charity  to  suppose  that  those  who  have  solemnly  sub- 
scribed to  this  creed  are  decided  Calvinists,  whatever 
varieties  of  opinion  they  may  hold  on  the  minor  branches 
of  the  system. 

Secondly.  When  charged  by  the  judicatories  of  their 
Church  with  disbelieving  these  doctrines — with  having 
abandoned  the  Confession  of  Faith,  so  far  as  Calvinism  is 
concerned,  and  gone  over  to  Arminianism,  they  defend 
themselves,  not  by  admitting  the  truth  of  the  charge,  and 
vindicating  their  course  on  the  ground  that  these  doctrines 
of  Calvinism  are  not  Scriptural,  but  by  denying  the  charge, 
and  asserting  their  orthodoxy.     An  editorial  article  in  the 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  267 

Philadelphia  Observer,  Sept.  28,  1837,  a  leading  New 
School  paper,  contains  the  following  : — 

"  It  is  now  clearly  understood  that  the  diversities  in 
doctrinal  opinions,  of  which  so  much  has  of  late  been  said, 
do  not  exist,  or  if  they  exist  at  all,  relate  only  to  those 
minor  shades  of  difference  in  the  mode  of  explaining  and 
illustrating  truth  which  have  always  existed  in  the  Church, 
and  which  have  never  been  regarded  as  an  occasion  of 
division  or  alienation." 

Dr.  Beecher,  who  was  arraigned  in  Cincinnati  as  a 
New  School  man,  on  the  charge  of  heresy,  in  the  work 
written  expressly  for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  himself 
before  the  pubhc,  says, — 

"  The  comprehensive  charge  against  me  is,  that  I  hold 
and  teach  Pelagian  and  Arminian  doctrines,  in  respect  to 
the  subject  of  free  agency  and  accountability,  original  sin, 
total  depravity,  regeneration,  and  Christian  character,  con- 
trary to  the  Confession  and  the  word  of  God "  With 
reference  to  this  charge  he  says,  "  If  my  doctrinal  belief 
is  adverse  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  as  immemorially 
explained,  I  am  not  only  not  reluctant  to  go  out  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  but  I  am  determined  not  to  stay  in 
it."— p.  14. 

Mr.  Barnes,  who  was  suspended  by  the  synod  of  Phila- 
delphia, on  the  charge  of  teaching  doctrines  contrary  to 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  assumes  the  same  ground  of  de- 
fence.    He  says, — 

"  '  The  Protest'  charges  the  author  of  the  sermon  en- 
titled, 'The  Way  of  Salvation'  with  having  broached 
errors  opposed  to  the  doctrinal  standards  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  and  in  their  tendency  exceedingly  danger- 
ous."— Defence,  p.  51.  "He  is  desirous  that  those  who 
may  peruse  this  Protest  may  know  that  the  author  of  the 
sermon  has  not  in  his  own  view — except  in  a  single  ex- 
pression, in  which  he  believes  he  coincides  with  almost 


268  ^NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

the  entire  mass  of  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
— deviated  from  her  standards,  &c." — p.  52. 

Again :  "  Before  proceeding  to  the  direct  consideratioiji 
of  the  charges  alleged  against  me,  I  may  be  permitted  to 
make  a  remark  on  my  views  of  the  standards  of  the  Church 

':  to  which  we  belong.  I  have  already  expressed  my  belief 
of  the  utility  of  creeds,  or  articles  of  faith.  Of  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  I  may  be 
allowed  to  say,  that  when  I  expressed  my  assent  to  it  as 
♦  a  system  of  doctrines,'  I  did  it  cordially,  and  that  I  have 
never  had  occasion  to  regret  the  act.  I  then  regarded  it 
as  I  do  now,  and  ever  have  done,  as  the  best  summary 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  which  I  have  ever  seen,  and 
as   expressing  my  views  of  the  true  scheme  of  Chris- 

■  tian  theology  in  a  manner  far  better  than  any  other  arti- 
■cles  of  faith  which  I  have  ever  examined.  The  system 
of  truth  contained  there,  as  distinguished  from  all  other 
systems — the  Socinian,  the  Pelagian,  the  Arian,  the  Ar- 
minian,  &c. — has  appeared  to  me  to  be  the  true  system  ; 
and  without  hesitation,  or  fluctuation,  I  have  received  it." 
—p.  111. 

Nor  does  Mr.  B.  look  upon  the  language  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  as  obscure,  liable  to  be  misinterpreted,  and 
requiring  a  commentary  to  make  it  intelligible.  "  I  have 
thought,"  he  adds,  "  that  there  was,  perhaps,  somewhat 
too  much  of  harshness  and  severity  of  language  in  the 
general  cast  of  that  Confession  ;  and  that  a  few  expres- 
sions do  not  convey,  without  much  laboured  exposition, 
the  meaning  of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  To  a  few  of  those 
expressions,  small  in  number,  and  not  affecting  the  system 
as  a  system,  I  have  always  taken  the  exceptions  which 
others  have  been  allowed  to  do." — Ibid. 

And  on  page  184 — "  Our  Confession  of  Faith  was  drawn 
up  by  men  admirably  skilled  in  the  use  of  language.  The 
terms  which  are  employed  are,  usually  at  least,  employed 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  369 

with  great  precision,  and  with  adniirable  guards  against 
misconstruction.  The  men  who  framed  it  were  profoundly- 
acquainted  with  the  English  tongue,  and  expressed  their 
ideas  with  great  accuracy." 

The  same  sentiment  is  avowed  by  Dr.  Beecher : — 

"  The  Confession  itself,  and  Catechisms,  are  made  up 
of  the  most  judicious,  concise,  and  accurate  descriptions 
of  doctrine,  experience,  and  practice,  ever  placed  on 
record.  Such  as  no  single  mind  would  have  formed,  or 
many  minds  without  that  marked  providential  supervision, 
which  in  the  same  age  that  he  gave  us  the  Bible  in  a 
translation  not  to  be  rivalled,  gave  an  epitome  of  its  con- 
tents, in  symbols,  which  will  carry  down  to  the  millennium 
the  comprehensive  suffrage  of  the  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus." 
— Views  in  Theology,  p.  233. 

Mr.  Barnes  appealed  from  the  decision  of  the  synod  to 
the  next  general  assembly,  which  held  its  session  in  Pitts- 
burg in  the  year  1836.  The  assembly,  having  a  majority 
of  New  School  men,  sustained  the  appeal,  and  restored 
Mr.  B.  to  his  former  standing,  on  the  ground  that  he  had 
not  departed  from  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Drs.  Philips 
and  Hoge,  of  the  opposite  party,  protested  against  this 
decision  of  the  assembly.  The  protest  was  referred  to  a 
committee.  In  the  answer,  which  was  read  by  Dr.  Skin 
ner,  there  is  the  following  passage  : — 

"  So  far  is  the  assembly  from  countenancing  the  errors 
alleged  in  the  charges  of  Dr.  Junkin,  that  they  do  cor- 
dially and  ex-animo  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  our 
Church,  on  the  points  of  doctrine  in  question,  according 
to  the  obvious  and  most  prevalent  interpretation ;  and  do 
regard  it,  as  a  whole,  as  the  best  epitome  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Bible  ever  formed.  And  the  assembly  disavows 
any  desire,  and  would  deprecate  any  attempt,  to  change 
the  phraseology  of  our  standards,  and  would  disapprove 
of  any  language  of  light  estimation  applied  to  them  ;  be- 


8W  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

lieving  that  no  denomination  can  prosper  whose  members 
permit  themselves  to  speak  slightingly  of  its  formularies 
of  doctrine  ;  and  are  ready  to  unite  with  their  brethren  in 
contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  of  our  standards." — 
Presbyterian,  June  25,  1836. 

Numerous  passages  might  be  cited  from  the  "  Opinions" 
of  individual  members  of  the  assembly,  "  delivered  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  B.,"  but  it  is  unnecessary,  as  the  report  con- 
taining the  extract  above  was  adopted  by  the  assembly, 
and  is  therefore  the  official  declaration  of  the  party. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  they  have  changed  their  doc- 
trines since  the  division  of  the  Church.  The  New,  or 
"  Constitutional  Assembly,"  as  they  style  themselves, 
adopted  the  following  resolution  unanimously,  at  their  ses- 
sion of  1838:— 

"  That  it  be,  and  hereby  is  recommended  to  all  the 
presbyteries  to  take  special  pains  to  have  the  book  con- 
taining the  Confession  of  Faith  and  form  of  government 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica more  generally  circulated  among  the  churches  under 
their  care." 

And  in  their  "  Pastoral  Letter"  they  say,  "We  love  and 
honour  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
as  containing  more  well-defined,  fundamental  truth,  with 
less  defect,  than  appertains  to  any  other  human  formida 
of  doctrine,  and  as  calculated  to  hold  in  intelligent  con- 
cord a  greater  number  of  sanctified  minds  than  any  which 
could  now  be  formed  ;  and  we  disclaim  all  design,  past, 
present,  and  future,  to  change  it." — Phil.  Observer,  Oct. 
11,  1838. 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  271. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

CALVINISM     CONTINUED. 

In  continuation  of  the  argument  to  prove  that  the  New 
School  party  are  Calvinists,  we  shall  next  adduce  some  of 
their  avowals  of  the  doctrines  of  that  system. 

And  as  circumstances  have  assigned  to  Mr.  Barnes 
great  pre-eminence  among  the  champions  of  that  party, 
we  shall  examine  his  sentiments  first. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact,  and  one  which  belongs  to  the 
history  of  this  controversy,  that  Mr.  B.  wrote  his  sermon 
on  "  The  Way  of  Salvation,"  which  has  involved  him  in 
so  much  difficulty  with  his  orthodox  brethren,  purposely, 
in  defence  of  Calvinism.  A  short  time  previous  to  its 
publication,  a  powerful  revival  of  religion  occurred,  in  the 
Methodist  church,  in  Morristown,  New- Jersey,  where  Mr. 
B.  was  settled.  By  some  means,  the  doctrines  of  Calvin- 
ism were  brought  up  for  discussion  before  the  community. 
Mr.  B.  preached  a  sermon  on  the  "  Sovereignty  of  God," 
in  which  he  endeavoured  to  defend  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine of  predestination.  This  sermon  was  ably  reviewed 
by  the  Rev.  Nathaniel  Porter,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  In  continuation  of  this  controversy,  Mr.  B. 
preached  and  published  the  sermon  first  named.  This 
sermon  was  supposed  by  some  of  his  brethren  to  contain 
principles  fatal  to  Calvinism,  and  was  made  the  ground  of 
ecclesiastical  prosecution. 

We  find  a  pretty  free  development  of  Mr.  B.'s  Calvinism 
in  his  introduction  to  "  Butler's  Analogy,"  in  which  he 
proposes  "  to  give  a  specimen  of  the  argument  from  ana- 
logy in  support  of  the  Christian  religion."  He  introduces 
the  subject  of  Calvinism  in  the  following  manner:  "There 
is  still  a  more  important  branch  of  the  argument  untouched 


272  NEW  DIVINITY CALX^NISM. 

— the  analogy  of  the  Christian  scheme,  as  we  understand 
it,  to  the  course  of  nature,  and  the  fact  that  all  the  objec- 
tions urged  against  Calvinism  lie  against  the  actual  order 
of  events." — p.  31. 

After  adverting  to  some  other  topics,  he  takes  up  the 
subject  of  predestination.  He  does  not  venture  at  once 
upon  a  clear  statement  of  his  views  on  this  subject.  He 
commences  by  saying,  "  Religion  affirms  that  God  exerts 
the  power  which  he  puts  forth  in  pursuance  of  a  plan  or 
purpose  definitely  fixed  before  the  foimdation  of  the  world." 
The  terms  "  plan"  and  "  purpose"  recur  incessantly,  as  if 
they  fully  expressed  the  doctrine  vmder  consideration. 
He  talks  about  the  opponents  of  Calvinism  doubting  and 
denying  that  God  has  a  plan,  or  purpose,  or  decree.  But 
his  meaning  is  easily  gathered  from  the  tenor  of  his  argu- 
ment, and  from  occasional  expressions.  For  instance,  it  is 
'the  doctrine  to  which  Arminians  are  opposed,  that  he  un- 
dertakes to  defend.  He  goes  on  to  say,  "And  we  know  of 
no  single  doctrine  that  has  been  more  universally  conceded 
by  infidels  to  be  in  the  Scriptures  ;  none  in  the  Bible  that 
has  been  so  often  brought  forward  among  their  alleged 
reasons  for  rejecting  it  as  a  revelation  ;  none  that  has  so 
frequently  crossed  the  path  of  wicked  men,  and  revealed 
the  secret  of  the  rebellion  of  their  hearts  ;  none  that  has 
called  forth  so  much  misplaced  ingenuity  from  Socinians 
and  Arminians,"  Sic.  Without  taking  up  the  question 
whether  infidels  make  the  doctrine  that  God  has  purposes, 
or  a  plan,  simply,  the  ground  of  their  objections  to  revela- 
tion, we  proceed  to  state,  that  Arminians  are  not  opposed 
to  the  doctrine  that  God  has  a  plan,  or  to  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  simply,  but  to  that  which  is  so  clearly  stated 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  Mr.  B.'s  Church — that  God 
has  ordained  tohatsoevcr  comes  to  pass.  To  deny  that  God 
has  a  plan,  would  seem  to  be  equal  to  a  denial  that  God 
has  any  fixed  and  ascertained  principles  of  moral  govern- 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  273 

ment.     But  what  Arminian  denies  this  1    Can  it  be  pos- 
sible that  Mr.  B.  is  so  ignorant  of  the  system  he  opposes, 
as  to  imagine  his  representation  of  it  correct  ?     To  settle 
this  question,  we  will  refer  to  an  Arminian  writer : — Dr. 
Adam  Clarke  says,  on  Eph.  i,  5,  "  Here  the  word  [pre- 
destinated] is  used  to  point  out  God's  fixed  purpose  or 
predestination  to  bestow  on  the  gentiles  the  blessing  of 
the  adoption  of  sons  by  Jesus  Christ ;  which  adoption  had 
been  before  granted  to  the  Jewish  people :  and  without 
circumcision,  or  any  other  Mosaic  rite,  to  admit  the  gen- 
tiles to  all  the  privileges  of  his  Church  and  people.     And 
the  apostle  marks,  that  all  this  was  fore-determined  by  God, 
as  he  had  fore-determined  the  bounds  and  precincts  of  the 
land  which  he  gave  to  them  according  to  the   promise 
made  to  their  fathers.     That  the  Jews  had  no  reason  to 
complain,  for  God  had/or??iei  this  purpose  before  he  had 
given  the  law,  or  called  them  out  of  Egypt ;  for  it  was 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  (ver.  2,)  and  that,  there- 
fore, the  conduct  of  God  in  calling  the  gentiles  now,  bring- 
ing them  into  his  Church,  and  conferring  on  them  the  gifts 
and  graces  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  in  pursuance  of  his 
original  design ;  and  if  he  did  not  do  so,  his  eternal  pur- 
jwses  could  not  be  fulfilled."     The  reader  wUl  perceive, 
that  there  is  no  hesitancy  on  the  part  of  Arminians  in  at- 
tributing to  God  predeterminations,  original  designs,  and 
eternal  purposes.    But  because  God  has  predestinated  some 
events,  they  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  infer  that  he  has  pre- 
destinated every  event,  especially  as  the  Scriptures  deny 
that  such  is  the  case.      We  infer,  then,  that  if  Mr.  B. 
knows  what  doctrine  of  predestination  it  is  to  which  Ar- 
minians are  opposed,  he  means  more  by  the  terms  pur- 
pose, plan,  Sic,  than  their  true  import  discloses. 

He  exhibits  his  views  more  fully  as  he    proceeds  to 
show  that  his  doctrine  does  not  interfere  with  th«  free- 
dom of  human  actions.     He  adverts  to  the  influence  which 
12* 


274  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

the  "  plans  or  purposes"  of  men  have  on  their  fellow-men, 
and  thus  brings  his  argument  to  its  conclusion :  "  In  all 
these,  and  ten  thousand  other  cases,  there  is  a  plan  formed 
by  other  beings  in  respect  to  us,  which  finally  enters  as  a 
controlling  element  of  our  destiny.  If  it  be  said  that  they 
all  leave  us  free,  so  we  say  of  the  decrees  of  God,  that 
we  have  a  like  consciousness  of  freedom.  In  neither 
case  does  the  foreign  influence  cripple  or  destroy  our  free- 
dom ;  in  neither  case  does  it  make  any  difference  whether 
the  plan  was  formed  an  hour  before  the  act,  or  has  stood 
fixed  for  ages.  All  that  could  bear  on  our  freedom  would 
be  the  fact,  that  the  purpose  was  previous  to  the  deed — a 
circumstance  which  does  not  alter  the  act  itself,  whether 
the  decree  be  formed  by  ourselves,  by  other  men,  or  by 
.  God." — p.  50.  We  now  begin  to  ascertain  the  nature  of 
the  plans  and  purposes  formed  by  other  beings,  in  respect 
to  us.  This  passage  connects  the  decree  of  God  with 
human  actions.  It  represents  him  as  foreordaining  human 
actions.  It  makes  no  difference,  we  are  told,  as  to  our 
freedom,  whether  the  plan  was  formed  an  hour  before  the 
act,  or  has  stood  for  ages  ;  or  whether  the  act  was  decreed 
by  ourselves,  by  others,  or  by  God.  We  would  suggest  a 
thought  which  seems  not  to  have  occurred  to  Mr.  B.  when 
penning  this  analogy ;  that  it  may  depend  on  the  nature  of 
the  influence  which  men  exert  on  each  other,  whether  the 
parties  acting  under  the  influence,  or  those  exerting  it,  are 
responsible  for  the  acts  induced. 

Mr.  B.  expresses  himself  decisively  on  page  53.  "But 
on  this  point  the  entire  movement  of  the  world  bears  the 
marks  of  being  conducted  according  to  a  plan.  We  defy 
a  man  to  lay  his  finger  on  a  fact  which  has  not  such  a 
relation  to  other  facts  as  to  show  that  it  is  a  part  of  a 
scheme — and  if  of  a  scheme,  then  of  a  purpose  formed  be- 
forehand.^'' This  is  plain  enough.  No  man,  we  are  as- 
sured, can  specify  a  fact  which  is  not  a  part  of  a  scheme 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  275 

and  of  course  a  part  of  a  purpose  formed  beforehand.  He 
is  speaking  of  the  connection  of  events  with  the  purposes 
of  God,  and  must  of  course  be  understood  to  lay  down  the 
doctrine  that  all  actions  and  events  are  a  part  of  God's 
scheme,  and  purposed  beforehand.  He  adverts  to  seve- 
ral facts  in  illustration  of  this  doctrine :  "  Alexander 
the  Great,  in  the  vigour  of  life,  and  in  the  full  career  of 
conquest,  was  cut  off  by  the  act  of  God.  Julian  the  Apos- 
tate, in  the  same  regions,  found  also  an  early  death,  and 
his  gigantic  plans  were  arrested  by  the  hand  of  God  with 
reference  to  other  great  purposes  in  the  liberty  or  religion 
of  man.  Napoleon  met  the  mighty  arm  of  God  in  the 
snows  of  the  north,  and  the  monarch  fell — and  with  him 
fell  the  last  purpose  of  his  life.  In  the  midst  of  daring 
schemes  man  often  falls.  God  wields  the  dart  to  strike  in 
an  unusual  manner,  and  the  victim  dies.  He  falls  in  with 
the  great  plans  of  the  Deity,  meets  snows,  or  lightnings, 
or  burning  heats,  or  piercing  colds  that  come  around  by  the 
direction  of  the  Governor  of  the  world,  and  the  man  sinks, 
and  his  plans  give  way  to  the  higher  purposes  of  the  Al- 
mighty."— p.  53. 

This  is  indeed  a  very  choice  selection  of  facts  ;  but  it 
would  not  be  difficult  for  "  a  man  to  lay  his  finger"  on  a 
iew  others  which,  according  to  this  doctrine,  are  equally 
a  part  of  God's  scheme  and  purpose — such,  for  instance, 
as  the  transgression  of  Adam,  the  murder  of  Abel  by  his 
brother,  or  any  other  murder.  We  would  also  suggest, 
whether  the  apostacy  of  Julian  was  not  as  certainly  a  fact 
as  his  death ;  and  whether  we  are  not  required  to  believe 
that  Napoleon  fell  in  Avith  the  plans  of  the  Deity  in  form- 
ing his  "  daring  schemes"  as  much  as  when  he  met  the 
snows  or  lightnings  ;  and  whether,  indeed,  he  could  have 
any  "  plans"  which  were  not  purposed  beforehand  by  the 
Almighty  ? 

There  is  a  passage  not  less  decisive  in  his  Notes  on 


276  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

Rom.  viii,  29  :  "  The  event  which  was  thus  foreknown 
must  have  been,  for  some  cause,  certain  and  jixed,  since 
an  uncertain  event  could  not  be  possibly  foreknown.  To 
talk  of  foreknowing  a  contingent  event  as  certain  which 
may  or  may  not  exist,  is  an  absurdity."  We  are  here  in- 
structed that  an  event  could  not  possibly  be  foreknown, 
unless  it  were  fixed,  and  that  to  talk  of  foreknowing  a  con- 
tingent event,  which  is  explained  to  be  one  which  may  or 
may  not  exist,  is  an  absurdity.  If,  then,  God  foreknew 
all  things,  it  is  absurd  to  say  of  any  past  event,  that  it 
might  not  have  existed,  or  of  any  future  event,  that  it  may 
or  may  not  exist.  Every  event  therefore  is  eternally  fixed. 
He  adds,  "  In  what  way  such  an  event  became  certain  is 
not  determined  by  the  use  of  the  word.  But  it  must  have 
•been  somehow  in  connection  with  a  divine  appointment  or 
^.rrangement,  since  no  other  way  can  be  conceived  to  be 
certain."  We  have  now  fairly  before  us  the  doctrine 
which  Mr.  B.  is  desirous  to  establish,  and  to  which  Ar- 
niinians  are  opposed — that  no  event  is  contingent — that 
all  the  actions  of  men  are  decreed — that  all  events  are 
fixed  by  divine  appointment.  And  if  we  connect  with 
the  above  what  he  says  on  Rom.  ix,  1 9,  we  shall  have  the 
additional  sentiment,  that  God's  purposes  arc  never  de- 
feated, but  that  every  thing  comes  to  pass  as  it  is  decreed. 
The  passage  referred  to  reads  as  follows :  "  This  docs 
not  mean  that  no  one  had  oflered  resistance  or  opposition 
to  God,  but  that  no  one  had  done  it  successfully.  God 
had  accomplished  his  purposes  in  spite  of  their  oppo- 
sition." 

We  have  one  more  passage,  beyond  which  it  is  impos- 
sible for  the  most  ultra  predestinarian  to  go.  It  is  found 
on  page  43  of  the  Introductory  Essay : — "  We  inter- 
pret the  decrees  of  God,  so  far  as  we  can  do  it,  hy  facts ; 
and  we  say  that  the  actual  result,  by  whatever  means 
brought  about,  is  the  expression  of  the  design  of  God." 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  277 

Mr  B.  deserves,  however,  the  credit  of  handling  this 
"  high  mystery"  with  "  special  caution." 

Next  comes  the  doctrine  of  the  election  of  some  to  eter- 
nal life,  and  the  rejection  of  others,  without  any  thing  in 
their  moral  character  operating  as  a  moving  cause  of  their 
election  or  rejection.  Mr.  B.  enlarges  on  the  inequality  with 
which  the  blessings  of  Providence,  and  the  gifts  of  nature, 
are  dispensed,  and  argues  from  it  as  follows  :  "  Now  we 
might  as  well  object  to  this  fixed  economy  of  things  as  to  that 
Avhich  affirms  that  God  dispenses  the  blessings  of  redemp- 
tion according  to  his  good  pleasure.  If  God  may  confer 
one  blessing  on  one  individual  which  he  withholds  from 
another,  we  ask  Avhy  he  may  not  be  a  sovereign  also  in 
the  dispensation  of  other  favours  ?  We  ask  what  principle 
of  justice  and  goodness  is  violated  if  he  imparts  penitence 
and  faith  to  one  individual,  that  is  not  violated  also  if  he 
gives  him  health  while  another  pines  in  sickness  ?  We 
ask  with  emphasis,  where  is  there  more  partiality  in  giv- 
ing the  Christian's  hope  to  Brainerd  or  Martyn  than  there 
is  in  giving  great  talents  to  Newton,  or  great  wealth  to 
Croesus  ?" 

There  is  no  difficulty  in  understanding  the  drift  of  this 
reasoning.  It  is  argued  that  God  dispenses  the  gifts  of 
nature  and  providence,  and  the  spiritual  blessings  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  on  the  same  principle  ;  that  he  gives 
penitence,  and  faith,  and  the  Christian's  hope,  on  the  same 
principle  on  which  he  gives  great  talents  or  wealth  ;  that 
he  may  do  in  respect  to  religion  as  he  does  in  respect  to 
health.  Now  if  it  be  understood  that  he  always  confers 
the  gifts  of  nature  and  providence  because  of  the  faith  and 
obedience  of  those  whom  he  distinguishes,  the  analogy 
will  hold  good.  But  this  cannot  be  Mr.  B.'s  meaning. 
He  evidently  intends  that,  as  God  may  confer  great  Avealth, 
or  talents,  or  health,  without  reference  to  the  conduct  of 
the  parties  favoured,  he  may  so  confer  the  blessings  of 


27S  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

salvation ;  and  that  as  no  man  is  injured,  if  God  fails  to 
confer  on  him  superior  talents,  so  no  man  is  injured  if 
God,  on  the  same  principle,  withholds  what  is  necessary 
to  salvation. 

This  doctrine  is  more  pointedly  set  forth  in  his  notes 
on  Rom.  ix,  11  :  "For  the  children  being  not  yet  born, 
having  done  neither  good  nor  evil,"  &c.,  he  says,  "  This 
is  a  very  important  passage  in  regard  to  the  question  about 
the  purposes  of  God.  (1.)  They  had  done  nothing  good 
or  bad,  &c.  Again,  (3.)  The  purpose  of  God  is  antece- 
dent to  the  formation  of  character,  or  the  performance  of 
any  actions,  good  or  bad.  (4.)  It  is  not  a  purpose  fonned, 
because  he  sees  any  thing  in  the  individuals  as  a  ground 
for  his  choice,  but  for  some  reason  which  he  has  not  ex- 
plained, and  which  in  the  Scripture  is  simply  called  pur- 
pose and  good  pleasure,  Eph.  i,  5.  (5.)  If  it  existed  in  this 
case,  it  does  in  others.  If  it  was  right  then,  it  is  right 
now.  And  if  God  then  dispensed  his  favours  on  this 
principle,  he  will  now."  And  on  the  next  verse,  "  It  was 
said  unto  her.  The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger,"  he  re- 
marks, "  There  was  a  reference  here  to  the  whole  train 
of  temporal  and  spiritual  blessings  which  were  to  be  con- 
nected with  the  two  races  of  people.  If  it  be  asked  how 
this  bears  on  the  argument  of  the  apostle,  we  may  reply, 
(1.)  That  it  settles  the  principle  that  God  might  make  a 
distinction  among  men,  in  the  same  nation,  and  the  same 
family,  without  regard  to  their  works  or  character.  (2.) 
That  he  might  confer  his  blessings  on  such  as  he  pleased. 
(3.)  If  this  is  done  in  regard  to  nations,  it  may  be  in  re- 
gard to  individuals.  The  principle  is  the  same,  and  the 
justice  the  same.  If  it  be  supposed  to  be  unjust  in  God 
to  make  such  a  distinction  in  regard  to  individuals,  it  is 
surely  no  less  so  to  make  a  distinction  in  regard  to  na- 
tions. The  fact  that  numbers  are  thus  favoured  docs  not 
make  it  the  more  proper,  or  remove  any  difficiUty.    (1.)  If 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  279 

this  distinction  may  be  made  in  regard  to  temporal  things, 
why  not  in  regard  to  spiritual  things  1  The  principle  must 
still  be  the  same.  If  unjust  in  one  case,  it  would  be  in 
the  other.  The  fact  that  it  is  done  in  one  case  proves 
also  that  it  will  be  in  the  other,  for  the  same  great  princi- 
ple will  run  through  all  the  dealings  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment. And  as  men  do  not,  and  cannot  complain  that  God 
makes  a  distinction  among  them  in  regard  to  talents, 
health,  beauty,  prosperity,  and  rank,  neither  can  they  com- 
plain if  he  acts  also  as  a  sovereign  in  the  distribution  of 
his  spiritual  favours.  They  therefore  who  regard  this  as 
referring  only  to  temporal  and  national  privileges  gain  no 
relief  in  respect  to  the  real  difficulty  in  the  case,  for  the 
unanswerable  question  would  still  be  asked,  Why  has  not 
God  made  all  men  equal  in  every  thing  ?  Why  has  he 
made  any  distinction  among  men  ?  The  only  reply  to  such 
inquiries  is,  '  Even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemeth  good  in 
thy  sight.'  " 

Here  it  is  contended  that  the  election,  by  which  one  of 
the  children  was  distinguished  from  the  other,  before  they 
were  born,  was  not  only  national,  but  individual ;  that  the 
privileges  to  which  one  was  elected,  and  from  which  the 
other  was  excluded,  were  not  only  temporal  but  spiritual ; 
that  if  such  a  distinction  has  been  made  in  one  case,  it 
has  in  others ;  that  if  God  can,  Avithout  injustice,  with- 
hold from  some  the  temporal  favours  he  confers  on  others, 
such  as  health,  beauty,  talents,  prosperity,  and  rank,  he 
can,  on  the  same  principle,  without  injustice,  withhold 
the  spiritual  blessings  necessary  to  salvation ;  that  the 
principle  is  the  same ;  and  that  if  any  one  asks  the  reason 
why  God  saves  some,  and  not  others,  it  is  not  to  be  stated, 
as  a  cause,  that  one  was  penitent  and  believing,  and  the 
other  impenitent ;  "  the  only  reply"  that  can  be  given  is, 
that  it  was  good  in  the  sight  of  God. 

Again,  on  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have 


S80  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

mercy,"  &c.,  he  says,  "  On  whom  I  choose  to  bestow 
mercy.  The  mode  he  does  not  explain.  But  there  could 
not  be  a  more  positive  declaration  of  these  truths,  (1.)  That 
he  does  it  as  a  sovereign,  without  giving  an  accoimt  of  the 
reason  of  his  choice  to  any.  (2.)  That  he  does  it  without 
regard  to  any  claim  on  the  part  of  man ;  or  that  man  is 
regarded  as  destitute  of  merit,  and  as  having  no  right  to 
his  mercy.  (3.)  That  he  Avill  do  it  to  any  extent  which 
he  pleases,  and  in  whatever  time  and  manner  may  best 
accord  with  his  own  good  pleasure.  (4.)  That  he  has  regard 
to  a  definite  number ;  and  that  on  that  number  he  intends  to 
bestow  eternal  life ;  and,  (5.)  That  no  one  has  a  right  to 
complain.  It  is  proof  of  his  benevolence  that  any  are 
saved  ;  and  where  none  have  a  claim,  where  all  are  justly 
condemned,  he  has  a  right  to  pardon  whom  he  pleases." 

Again,  on  the  next  verse,  he  gives  us  to  understand  that 
'the  salvation  of  the  sinner  is  not  dependent  on,  or  pro- 
moted by,  his  effort  to  that  end,  but  results  wholly  from 
the  partiality  of  God.  He  tells  us  "  that  he  is  pardoned, 
not  on  account  of  his  effort ;  not  because  he  makes  an  ex- 
ertion ;  but  because  God  chooses  to  pardon  him."  Again: 
*'  Weep  and  strive  he  may,  but  in  this  there  is  no  ground 
of  claim  on  God  for  pardon ;  and,  after  all,  he  is  depend- 
ent on  his  mere  sovereign  mercy,  a  lost,  ruined,  and  help- 
less sinner,  to  be  saved  or  lost  at  his  will." 

Whether  it  would  be  just  or  unjust  in  God,  before  his 
creatures  are  born,  to  elect  some  to  eternal  life,  and  leave 
others  in  circumstances  which  will  infallibly  secure  their 
sinning  and  damnation  ;  whether  God  withholds  temporal 
favours,  and  the  blessings  necessary  to  salvation,  on  the 
same  principle ;  and  whether  the  justice  is  the  same  in 
both  cases,  or  not,  one  tiling  is  plain,  that,  according  to 
this  scheme,  it  is  great  folly  to  talk  of  a  free  salvation. 
What  manifest  inconsistency  for  a  man  to  offer  salvation 
to  all,  and  require  all  to  repent,  believe,  and  hope,  when 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  281 

he  holds  that  God  "  imparts  penitence  and  faith,"  and 
"  gives  the  Christian's  hope,"  to  a  definite  number,  elected 
to  this  distinction  before  they  were  born,  and  withholds 
these  blessings  from  others  ;  and  that  this  is  the  sole  rea- 
son why  some  sinners  are  saved,  and  others  are  not !  But 
we  have  our  doubts,  whether  the  principle  and  justice  of 
withholding  temporal  and  spiritual  favours  are  precisely 
the  same.  God  may  withhold  temporal  things,  and  there- 
by promote  our  spiritual  advantage  and  final  salvation; 
but  to  withhold  all  spiritual  blessings  excludes  all  hope 
throughout  eternity.  We  can  easily  approve  of  the  pur- 
pose of  electing  one  of  those  children  to  special  temporal 
privileges,  and  of  assigning  the  other  a  relation  of  inferiority 
in  these  respects,  before  they  were  born,  and  wholly  irre- 
spective of  their  works  ;  but  the  doctrine  that  one  unborn 
child  is  elected  to  eternal  life,  and  another  consigned  to  a 
destitution  of  all  the  blessings  necessary  to  salvation,  is 
to  us  a  revolting  dogma — a  heresy  most  hateful,  if  not 
blasphemous. 

Mr.  B.  also  holds  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  infallible 
perseverance.  On  chap,  viii,  30,  he  says,  "  This  proves, 
therefore,  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints. 
There  is  a  connection  infallible  and  ever  existing  between 
the  predestination  and  the  final  salvation."  And  in  a  note 
to  his  sermon  on  "  The  Way  of  Salvation,"  referring  to 
John  X,  27,  28,  he  says,  "  This  single  passage  settles  all 
controversy  about  the  doctrine  of  falling  from  grace.  Ad- 
mitting that  it  had  ever  been  the  intention  of  Christ  to 
teach  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints,  it 
could  not  have  been  done  in  more  explicit  language." — 
Defence,  p.  37. 

We  have  Mr.  B.'s  views  of  the  manner  in  which  God 
treats  the  non-elect,  in  his  comment  on  the  case  of  Pha- 
raoh. On  verse  17,  he  says,  "This  passage  is  designed 
to  illustrate  the  doctrine,  that  God  shows  mercy  accord- 


282  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM, 

ing  to  his  sovereign  pleasure  by  a  reference  to  one  of  the 
most  extraordinary  cases  of  hardness  of  heart  which  has 
ever  occurred.  The  design  is  to  show  that  God  has  a 
right  to  pass  by  those  to  whom  he  does  not  choose  to 
show  mercy ;  and  to  place  them  in  circumstances  where 
they  shall  develop  their  true  character^  and  where  in  fact 
they  shall  become  more  hardened,  and  be  destroyed." 

And  again,  on  verse  18,  he  says,  "  The  word  hardeneth 
means  only  to  harden  in  the  manner  specified  in  the  case 
of  Pharaoh.  It  does  not  mean  to  exert  a  positive  influence, 
but  to  leave  a  sinner  to  his  own  course,  and  to  place  him 
in  circumstances  where  the  character  will  be  more  and 
more  developed. — See  note,  John  xii,  40.  It  implies,  how- 
ever, an  act  of  sovereignty  on  the  part  of  God  in  thus  leav- 
ing him  to  his  chosen  course,  and  in  not  putting  forth  that 
influence  by  which  he  could  be  saved  from  death.  Why 
this  is,  the  apostle  does  not  state."  Mr.  B.  does  not  look 
on  Pharaoh  as  one  who  might  have  been  saved,  but  from 
whom  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  withdrawn,  in  consequence 
of  resistance,  and  whose  existence  was  continued  beyond 
that  period  for  the  purposes  mentioned.  God,  as  an  act  of 
sovereignty,  passed  him  by — left  him  to  his  own  course — 
declined  putting  forth  that  influence  by  which  he  could  be 
saved  from  death.  And  from  the  following  language  it  is 
plain  that  this  commentator  considers  the  course  pursued 
toward  Pharaoh  as  an  example  of  the  course  pursued  to- 
ward the  non-elect  in  general. 

"  The  case  of  Pharaoh  was  one  instance  or  illustration 
of  the  general  principle  on  which  God  Avould  deal  with 
men.  His  government  is  conducted  on  great  and  uni- 
form principles  ;  and  the  case  of  Pharaoh  was  a  develop- 
ment of  the  great  laws  on  which  he  governs  the  universe." 
—V.  23. 

Great  eflbrts  are  made  by  many  modern  Calvinistic 
writers,  to  prove  that  the  eternal  election  of  some  does 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  9®3,: 

not  imply  a  positive  decree  of  reprobation  respecting  the 
rest ;  and  that  w^hile  one  class  is  elected  there  may  be  no 
decree  whatever  as  to  the  course  and  destiny  of  the  other, 
but  they  may  be  merely  passed  by,  not  elected,  &c. 
It  seems  to  be  felt  that  if  God  be  supposed  to  decree  their 
reprobation,  as  he  decrees  the  salvation  of  the  elect,  his 
justice  and  goodness  are  placed  in  an  inauspicious  light. 
We  have  already  shown,  that,  whether  the  attributes  of 
Jehovah  are  vindicated  or  not  by  such  arguments,  the  case 
of  the  non-elect  is  one  of  utter  hopelessness  from  the  be- 
ginning, and  that  to  offer  salvation  to  all  is  useless,  if  not 
madness.  Either  Avhat  is  done  for  the  elect  is  not  neces- 
sary for  their  salvation,  or  the  damnation  of  the  non-elect 
is  inevitable.  But  the  language  of  Mr.  B.  does  not  accord 
with  these  plausible  speculations.  According  to  his  repre- 
sentations, God  not  only  declines  putting  forth  the  influ- 
ence by  which  they  may  be  saved  from  death,  but  places 
them  in  circumstances  calculated  to  develop  their  cha- 
racter as  sinners.  This  latter  sentiment  he  affirms  again 
and  again.  Now  compare  this  with  his  challenge,  to  any 
man,  to  produce  a  fact  which  is  not  a  part  of  the  divine 
purpose,  with  his  argimient  to  prove  that  whatever  is  fore- 
known is  fixed  by  the  appointment  of  God,  and  with  his 
declaration  that  the  actual  result,  by  whatever  means 
brought  about,  is  the  expression  of  the  design  of  God,  and 
those  wire-drawn  speculations  are  given  to  the  winds. 

We  would  notify  the  reader  that  it  is  not  our  present 
object  to  refute  Calvinism  ;  but  merely  to  prove  that  it  is 
held  by  the  New  School  party.  Its  refutation  is  much  the 
easier  task.  Put  together,  then,  the  ordination  vow  of 
Mr.  B.,  which  he  has  never  regretted,  his  declarations  of 
adherence  to  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  his  assertion  of 
its  leading  doctrines,  and  the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that 
he  is  a  Calvinist,  whatever  else  he  may  be. 


284  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 

CALVINISM    CONTINUED. 

The  part  which  Dr.  Skinner  performed  in  the  General 
Assembly  of  1836,  is  sufficient  to  identify  him  with  the 
class  of  theologians  under  review.  He  is  a  leading  man 
among  them.  He  classed  himself  with  them,  in  a  very 
decided  manner,  in  a  speech  delivered  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Barnes.  He  remarked,  "  It  has  been  said  that  there  was 
no  trouble  in  Philadelphia  before  Mr.  Barnes  came  there. 
I,  sir,  had  trouble  there  on  account  of  my  doctrinal  senti- 
ments. How  could  it  be  said  that  there  was  no  trouble 
there  until  Mr.  Barnes  came,  when  I  was  spoken  of  as 
the  first  of  that  kidney  in  the  city  1  If  you  condemn  Mr. 
Barnes,  you  condemn  all  of  us."  Again :  "  These  are  our 
peculiarities  :  they  do  not  exclude  us  from  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  Now  the  question  is,  whether  this  class 
shall  any  longer  be  tolerated  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Mr.  Barnes  is  not  distinguished  from  the  class  :  he  is  a 
fair  sample  of  the  class.  We  do  not  consider  him  as  by 
any  means  an  ultra  among  us." 

That  Dr.  Skinner  is  a  Calvinist,  is  fully  demonstrated 
by  the  terms  of  his  ordination  vow,  and  his  declared  ap- 
proval of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  not  only 
in  respect  to  its  doctrines,  but  also  its  phraseology.  But  we 
proposed  to  furnish  our  readers  with  distinct  avowals 
of  Calvinistic  doctrine.  In  the  speech  just  alluded  to,  Dr. 
S.  professes  to  state  the  doctrines  which  the  "  New  School 
hold  and  preach,  in  common,  as  they  suppose,  with  their 
Old  School  brethren."  We  shall  commence  our  quotations 
with  the  fourth  article,  as  there  is  nothing  in  those  which 
precede  it,  relevant  to  our'present  purpose.  According  to 
this  statement,  they  believe,  and  of  course  Dr.  S.  believes — 

"  4.  That  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  effectual 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM,  285 

calling  is  supernatural  and  sovereign,  and  as  to  the  mode 
of  its  exercise  is  incomprehensible. 

"  5.  That  those  \v,ho  in  time  are  effectually  called  by 
the  Spirit  of  God  were  chosen  to  salvation  through  Christ, 
and  that  this  election  is  sovereign,  not  gTOunded  on  fore- 
seen holiness  in  the  elect,  but  unto  holiness,  or  that  they 
might  be  holy. 

"  6.  That  the  renewed  persevere  in  holiness  to  the  end, 
but  not  by  virtue  of  any  power  or  principle  of  holiness  in 
themselves,  but  by  the  indwelling  power  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, working  in  them  to  will  and  to  do,  and  thus  securing 
their  activity  and  perseverance. 

"  7.  That  the  happiness  of  the  elect  is  perfect  and 
eternal ;  and  that  the  non-elect,  for  their  sin,  are  punished 
in  hell  for  ever." 

This  is  not  a  full  and  undisguised  declaration  of  the 
Calvinistic, creed.  It  may  be  considered  as  "containing" 
or  implying  the  system,  rather  than  explicitly  stating  it. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  fourth  article  to  which  an  Armi- 
nian  can  object,  taking  the  words  according  to  their  visual 
meaning.  The  term  "  sovereign "  contains  the  Calvin- 
ism of  this  article.  In  Calvinistic  parlance  it  does  not 
mean,  merely,  that  God  acts  as  a  sovereign  in  the  dispen- 
sation of  his  favours — a  doctrine  which  no  one  is  disposed 
to  deny — but  that  he  exercises  his  sovereignty  by  electing 
some  to  the  enjoyment  of  those  spiritual  blessings  connect- 
ed with  salvation,  and  by  withholding  them  from  others  ; 
and  that,  in  making  the  selection,  he  is  governed  solely 
by  his  own  pleasure,  and  not  by  any  thing  in  the  moral 
character  of  the  parties  chosen  or  rejected.  The  article 
on  election,  in  which  he  affirms  that  it  is  "  sovereign," 
explains  what  he  means  by  that  term,  viz.,  that  the  elec- 
tion is  not  "  grounded  on  foreseen  holiness  in  the  elect, 
but  unto  holiness,  or  that  they  might  be  holy." 

We  gather,  then,  from  this  exhibition,  the  following 


286  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

amount  of  genuine  Calvinism  : — That  God  has  elected 
some  men  to  final  salvation,  exclusive  of  others  ;  that 
these  persons  are  elected,  not  becaiise  they  are  penitent 
and  believing,  or  differ  in  their  moral  character  from 
the  non-elect,  but  that  they,  being  unholy  like  the  non- 
elect,  "  might  become  holy ;"  that  God  acts  upon  this  prin- 
ciple in  the  dispensation  of  the  necessary  spiritual  in- 
fluence, granting  the  effectual  calling  to  none  but  the  elect ; 
that  the  elect  invariably  persevere  unto  the  end,  and  that 
their  perseverance  is  not  attributable,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
to  any  power  or  principle  of  holiness  in  themselves,  but 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  vouchsafed  to  them  on  the  principle  of 
sovereignty,  on  which  they  were  elected. 

The  short  creed,  or  form  of  admission  into  the  Mercer- 
street  Presbyterian  Church,  of  which  Dr.  S.  is  the  pastor, 
contains  two,  and  but  two  Calvinistic  articles.  They  are 
as  follows  : — "  You  believe  that  no  man  of  himself  em- 
braces this  way  of  salvation  unless  induced  and  deter- 
mined so  to  do  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  that 
this  agency  is  exerted  in  a  free  and  sovereig-n  manner, 
according  to  the  counsel  of  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness. 

*'  You  believe  that  the  subjects  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  re- 
newing influence  are,  in  some  degree,  holy  as  God  is 
holy  ;  and  submit  themselves  absolutely  to  God's  will  as 
the  law  of  their  being ;  and  though  but  imperfectly  sanc- 
tified while  in  this  world,  do,  by  God's  grace,  persevere 
in  resisting  sin  and  following  holiness,  until  they  pass  into 
the  heavenly  state." 

These  articles  of  belief  are  so  cautiously  worded  that 
most  persons  not  versed  in  inquiries  of  this  description, 
or  not  very  much  on  their  guard,  would  fail  to  detect  in 
them  any  thing  like  Calvinism.  But  when  we  take  into 
view  the  theological  meaning  which  Calvinists  attach  to 
the  word  "  sovereign,"  the  secret  is  laid  open  ;  and  the 
articles  in  question  are  clearly  understood  to  mean,  that 


NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM.  287 

God  selects  from  among  the  unholy,  as  unholy,  the  subjects 
of  the  Holy  Spirit's  agency ;  that  this  agency  not  only  in- 
duces, but  determines  them  to  embrace  the  w^ay  of  salva- 
tion, and  that  those  thus  selected  invariably  persevere,  al- 
though but  imperfectly  sanctified  in  this  world,  until  they 
pass  into  the  heavenly  state. 

But  if  we  may  infer  the  doctrines  of  the  pastor  from 
those  taught  to  the  children  in  the  sabbath  school  of  the 
church,  subject  to  his  pastoral  oversight,  we  are  in  posses- 
sion of  a  very  plain  exhibition  of  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  S. 
on  this  subject.  We  have  before  us  a  copy  of  the  Cate- 
chism used  in  his  sabbath  school.  Its  title  is,  "  The  Ca- 
techism of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines ;  with 
Scriptural  Questions  and  Answers.  By  the  Rev.  Mat- 
thew Henry,  D.  D.,  Author  of  the  Commentary  on  the 
Bible.  Also,  A  Familiar  Exposition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
in  the  form  of  Question  and  Answer,  by  the  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Fatten."  It  is  based  on  the  "  Shorter  Catechism," 
and  differs  from  it  in  these  respects  : — First,  between  the 
questions  and  answers  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  there  is  a 
series  of  questions  with  negative  or  affirmative  answers,  as 
the  case  may  require,  and  a  short  passage  of  Scripture, 
connected  with  each  answer,  to  be  repeated  by  the 
scholar  in  confirmation  of  it.  Secondly,  it  contains  an  ex- 
position of  the  Lord's  prayer  in  the  form  of  question  and 
answer.  The  reader  will  now  be  prepared  for  the  extracts 
bearing  on  the  question  before  us.  First  come  the  question 
and  answer  of  the  Shorter  Catechism.  We  begin  with  the 
seventh  question. 

"  Q.  7.   What  are  the  decrees  of  God  ? 

"  A.  The  decrees  of  God  are  his  eternal  purposes,  ac- 
cording to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will ;  whereby,  for  his 
own  glory,  he  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass." 

Then  the  questions  and  Scripture  answers,  among  which 


288  NEW   DIVINITY— CALVINISM 

are  the  following  : — "  Does  God  dispose  of  all  things  that 
come  to  pass  ?  Yes  :  '  My  times  are  in  thy  hand,'  Psa. 
xxxi,  15.  Does  he  do  it  according  to  his  own  ivill?  Yes  : 
for  '  he  hath  done  whatsoever  he  pleased,'  Psa.  cxv,  2. 
Were  all  the  events  of  time  ordained  from  eternity  ?  Yes  : 
'  He  performeth  the  thing  that  is  appointed  for  me,'  Job 
xxiii,  14.  Does  every  thing  come  to  pass  as  God  has  or- 
dained it  ?  Yes  :  for  there  are  many  devices  in  a  man's 
heart ;  nevertheless  the  counsel  of  the  Lord,  that  shall 
stand." 

"  Q.  8.  How  does  God  execute  his  decrees  1 

"'A.  God  executes  his  decrees  in  the  works  of  creation 
and  providence." 

Under  this  we  have,  among  others,  the  following  ques- 
tions and  answers  : — "  Shall  all  God's  decrees  he  executed? 
Yes  :  '  for  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath  sworn,  Surely  as  I  have 
thought,  so  shall  it  surely  come  to  pass,'  Isa.  xiv,  24.  Can 
any  of  them  be  defeated  ?  No  :  for  '  the  Lord  hath  purposed, 
and  who  shall  disannul  it  V  Isa.  xiv,  27." 

"  Q.  20.  Did  God  leave  all  mankind  to  perish  in  the  state 
of  sin  and  misery  ? 

"  A.  God,  having  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  from 
all  eternity,  elected  some  to  eternal  life,  did  enter  into  a 
covenant  of  grace,  to  deliver  them  out  of  a  state  of  sin  and 
misery,  and  to  bring  them  into  a  state  of  salvation  by  a 
Redeemer." 

Then  we  have  the  following  interesting  amplification  for 
the  benefit  of  youthful  minds. 

"Did  God  particularly  design  the  salvation  of  a  portion 
of  mankind?  Yes  :  'there  is  a  remnant  according  to  the 
election  of  grace,'  Rom.  xi,  5.  Ai-e  there  some  whom  God 
has  chosen  ?  Yes  :  '  God  hath  from  the  beginning  chosen 
you  to  salvation,  through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,' 
2  Thess.  ii,  3.  Is  there  a  certain  number  of  such  ?  Yes  :  for 
'  their  names  are  in  the  book  of  life,'  Phil,  iv,  3 ;  Rev. 


NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM.  289 

xiii,  8.  Were  they  chosen  from  eternity  ?  Yes:  'he  has 
chosen  us  in.  hhn  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,'  Eph, 
i,  4.  Were  they  chosen  for  the  sake  of  any  thing  in  them- 
selves ?  No  :  '  ye  have  not  chosen  me,  but  I  have  chosen 
you,'  John  xv,  16.  But  of  Ms  mere  good  pleasure  1  Yes  : 
'  he  hath  predestinated  us  according  to  the  good  pleasure 
of  his  will,'  Eph.  i,  5.  Were  they  chosen  to  salvation  as  the 
end  ?  Yes  :  '  God  hath  appointed  us  to  obtain  salvation,' 
1  Thess.  V,  9.  And  to  sanctification  as  the  means  ?  Yes  : 
'  he  has  chosen  us  that  we  should  be  holy,'  Eph.  i,  4. 
Was  it  for  the  glory  of  God?  Yes  :  that  he  '  might  make 
known  the  riches  of  his  glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy.' 

"  Q.  21 .    Who  is  the  Redee7ner  of  God's  elect  1 

"  A.  The  only  Redeemer  of  God's  elect  is  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who,  being  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  became 
man  ;  and  so  was  and  continues  to  be,  God  and  man  in 
two  distinct  natures  and  one  person  for  ever." 

Under  this  leading  question  and  answer  we  have  a  sam- 
ple of  Calvinistic  free  salvation — "  7^  he  a  universal  Re- 
deemer ?  Yes  :  '  he  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,'  1  Tim 
ii,  6.  Did  he  die  to  purchase  a  general  offer  ?  Yes  :  '  the 
Son  of  man  was  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  believes  in  him 
should  not  perish,'  John  iii,  14,  15.  Is  Christ,  in  a  spe- 
cial manner,  the  Redeemer  of  the  elect  ?  Yes  :  '  I  lay  down 
my  life  for  the  sheep,'  John  x,  15.  Was  their  salvation  par- 
ticularly  designed  in  Chrisfs  undertaking  ?  Yes  :  '  thou  hast 
given  him  power  over  all  flesh,  that  he  should  give  eternal 
life  to  as  many  as  thou  hast  given  him,'  John  xvii,  2." 

"  Q.  30.  How  does  the  Spirit  apply  to  us  the  redemption 
purchased  hy  Christ  1 

"  A.  The  Spirit  applies  to  us  the  redemption  purchased 
by  Christ,  by  working  faith  in  us,  and  thereby  uniting  us 
to  Christ  in  our  effectual  calling. 

"  Does  the  Spirit  work  faith  in  us  ?  Yes  :  '  it  is  the  faith 
of  the  operation  of  God,'  Col.  ii,  12,     Shall  it  be  wrought 

13 


290  "     NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

in  all  the  chosen  1  Yes  :  '  for  it  is  the  faith  of  God's  elect.' 
Tit.  i,  1.  Are  we  united  to  Christ  in  our  effectual  calling  ? 
Yes :  '  for  we  are  called  into  the  fellowship  of  his  Son, 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,'  1  Cor.  i,  9.  Will  the  common  call 
unite  us  to  Christ  ?  No  :  '  for  many  are  called,  but  few  are 
chosen,'  Matt,  xxii,  14.  Is  it  the  effectual  call  that  does 
it  ?  Yes  :  '  for  whom  he  called,  them  he  justified,'  Rom. 
viii,  10." 

And  under  the  next  question  and  answer  of  the  Shorter 
Catechism,  which  relate  to  effectual  calling,  we  find  the 
following  : — "  Is  it  the  grace  of  God  that  turns  us  to  him  1 
Yes  :  'the  Lord  opened  the  heart  of  Lydia,'  Acts  xvi,  14. 
Is  it  special  grace  ?  Yes  :  '  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth, 
nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy,' 
Rom.  ix,  16.  Shall  this  grace  be  given  to  all  the  elect  ?  Yes  : 
'  all  that  the  Father  hath  given  me  shall  come  unto  me,' 
John  vi,  37.  Shall  it  be  effectual  ?  Yes  :  '  his  grace 
which  was  bestowed  on  me  was  not  in  vain,'  1  Cor.  xv,  10. 
Can  any  turn  to  God  without  this  sj^ecial  grace  1  No  :  '  for 
no  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath 
sent  me  draw  him,'  John  vi,  44." 

"  Q.  36.  What  are  the  benefits  which  in  this  life  do  either 
accompany  or  fiow  from  justification,  adoption,  and  sanclifica- 
tion  ? 

"  A.  The  benefits  which  in  this  life  do  either  accom- 
pany or  flow  from  justification,  adoption,  and  sanctification, 
are  assurance  of  God's  love,  peace  of  conscience,  joy  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  increase  of  grace,  and  perseverance  therein 
to  the  end. 

"  Shall  true  believers  persevere  to  the  end  ?  Yes  :  '  for  He 
that  hath  begun  a  good  work  wiU  perform  it,'  Phil,  i,  6. 
Will  hypocrites  persevere  ?  No :  '  these  have  no  root, 
which  for  a  while  beUeve,  and  in  time  of  temptation  fall 
away,'  Luke  viii,  13.  Does  it  appear  by  their  apostacy  that 
they  were  never  sincere  ?     Yes  :  '  they  went  out  from  us, 


NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM.  291 

because  they  were  not  of  us ;  for  if  they  had  been  of  us 
they  would  no  doubt  have  continued  with  us,'  1  Johnii,  19. 
But  shall  any  that  are  justified  finally  fall  away  ?  No  : ''  for 
whom  he  justified,  them  he  glorified,'  Rom.  vii,  30.  Can 
true  grace  be  finally  lost  ?  No  :  it  is  '  that  good  part  which 
shall  never  be  taken  away,'  "  &c.,  &c. 

We  presume  that  this  is  sufiiciently  plain  for  the  un- 
derstanding even  of  Methodists,  who  are  esteemed    by 
some  Calvinists,  to  be  remarkably  dull  of  apprehension  on 
such  subjects.  This  catechism  teaches  that  all  the  events 
of  time  were  ordained  from   eternity ;  that  every  thin<r 
comes  to  pass  as  God  ordained  it;  that  God  executes  his 
own  decrees,  which  extend  to  every  event  of  time,  and 
that   none  of  them    can  be  defeated ;  that  he  has  from 
eternity  particularly  designed  to  save,  and  chosen  to  salva- 
tion, a  portion  of  mankind,  not  for  the  sake  of  any  thing 
m  themselves,  but  of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  and  that 
the  number  of  such  is  predetermined;  that  special  grace 
is  required  to  enable  any  to  turn  to  God ;  that  this  grace 
IS  given  to  all  the   elect,  and   is  effectual  in  every  in- 
stance ;  that,  although  Christ  is  a  universal  Redeemer, 
and  died  to  purchase  a  general  offer,  he  is  in  a  special 
manner  the  Redeemer  of  God's  elect,  and  that  their  sal- 
vation was  particularly  designed  in  his  undertaking ;  that 
none    but  the    elect    are    true    believers  ;   that   they  can 
never  fall  away  and  be  lost ;  and  that   all  who  make  a 
profession  of  religion  and  fall  away,  are  hypocrites. 

We  are  not  a  little  tempted  to  enlarge  on  the  inconsis- 
tency of  covering  up  these  doctrines  so  carefully  in  the 
"  Form  of  Admission"  into  the  church ;  of  reprobating  in 
the  dedication  sermon  the  inculcation  of  sectarian  pecu- 
liarities ;  of  publishing  the  sermon  for  general  circulation 
at  the  request  of  the  officers  of  the  church,  and  then  in- 
troducing these  doctrines  into  the  sabbath  school,  exube- 
rant as  they  appear  in  this  catechism,  and  instilling  them 


292  NEW  DIVINITV CALVINISM. 

into  the  minds   of  children  ;  but  with  this  hint,  we  will 
leave  our  readers  to  their  own  reflections. 

We  would  here  remind  the  reader  that  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Patton,  one  of  the  authors  of  this  catechism,  is  a  leading 
New  School  man  ;  and  was  a  prominent  actor  in  the  sepa- 

i:  ration  which  took  place  in  the  General  Assembly  of  ]  838, 
and  also  in  the  doings  of  the  new  Assembly. 

One  passage,  expressive  of  Dr.  Beecher's  sentiments, 
may  suffice  for  the  present.  He  says,  "  I  have  no  sym- 
pathy for  the  opinion  that  it  depends  on  sinners  whether 
they  be  regenerated  or  not  in  the  day  of  His  power — or 
that  God  does  all  he  can,  and  leaves  the  event  of  submis- 
sion or  not  to  rebel  man — and  that  sinners  make  them- 
selves to  differ,  and  are  in  fact  the  self-determining 
authors  of  their  own  regeneration.     The  passages  quoted 

'  to  prove  .such  an  assertion  are  misunderstood  and  per- 
verted."—  Views  in  Theology,  p.  209. 

We  have  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Cox,  in  his  work  on 
Quakerism,  the  following  avowal,  which  it  would  be 
difficult  to  misinterpret :  "  Respecting  predestination, 
without  discussing  a  subject  so  extensive,  so  sinned 
against — not  sinning,  and  so  glorious  and  fundamental, 
I  would  affectionately  suggest  the  following  things  :  1 . 
It  is  both  foolish  and  unfair  to  charge  its  alleged  diffi- 
culties, as  it  is  often  done  in  this  country,  on  Prcsbytc- 
rianism,  or  Calvinism.  Before  either  of  these  existed, 
the  very  difficulties — which  are  wholly  relative,  and  re- 
^ult  from  our  ignorance,  and  folly,  and  unbelief  alone — 

-  existed  and  were  amply  known.  The  premises  of  the 
doctrine  are  fully  contained  in  Barclay's  Apology ;  since 
they  are  ultimately  resolvable  into  the  attributes  of  the 
INFINITE  God.  Omniscience — who  can  deny  ? — eter- 
nally knows  all  things,  and  anticipates  them  infallibly,  in 
a  system  over  which  God  presides,  which  he  created  and 
constantly  upholds.     For,   'although  in  relation  to  the 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  293 

foreknowledge  and  decree  of  God,  the  first  cause,  all 
things  come  to  pass  immediately  and  infallibly,  yet  by 
the  same  providence  he  ordereth  them  to  fall  out  accord- 
ing to  the  nature  of  second  causes,  either  necessarily, 
freely,  or  contingently.' — Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith, 
chap.  V,  sect.  2.  No  absolute  contingency  exists  ;  yet  all 
relative  contingencies,  such  to  us  (and  the  world  is  full 
of  them)  are  infallibly  and  economically  foreknown  in  the 
system,  and  most  wisely  ordered  and  overruled  by  the 
eternal  owner  of  all  things.  The  means  and  the  end  of 
every  related  series  are  reciprocally  connected  and  mutual- 
ly dependent  in  the  constitution  of  God." — Quakerism  not 
Christianity,  p.  660. 

In  this  passage  we  are  told  that,  in  consequence  of  the 
decree  of  God,  all  things  come  to  pass  immediately  and 
infallibly  ;  that  no  absolute  contingency  exists  ;  and  that 
relative  contingencies  are  all  ordered,  as  well  as  overruled, 
by  God. 

The  state  of  theology  in  the  Baptist  and  Congregational 
churches  generally,  is  the  same  as  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church.  They  are  Calvinistic,  and  divided  into  par- 
ties, which,  if  not  distinguished  by  the  appellations.  Old 
School  and  New  School,  are  known  by  the  same  doctrinal 
differences.  Fuller,  Hall,  and  Hinton  among  Baptists,  are 
leading  advocates  of  New  Divinity,  and  yet  decided  Cal- 
vinists.  We  have  before  us  the  articles  of  belief  of  a 
New  Divinity  Baptist  Church,  in  Stanton-street,  New- 
York,  which  is  supposed  by  some,  to  be  quite  Arminian. 
It  is  under  the  pastoral  care  of  the  Rev.  George  Benedict, 
a  warm  advocate  apparently  for  free  salvation.  It  con- 
tains the  following  sentiments  : — 

"  We  believe — 

"  Art.  IV.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  all  mankind  to  repent 
of  their  sins,  and  believe  upon  Christ  the  Redeemer,  and 
that  the  guilt  and  final  misery  of  those  who  reject  the  gos- 


294  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

pel  will  be  greatly  augmented  by  their  unbelief,  but  that 
from  the  enmity  of  the  human  heart,  none  will  come  to 
Christ  except  by  the  special  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
sent  forth  to  effect  within  them  the  work  of  regeneration. 

"  Art.  V.  That  all  who  are  thus  brought  to  repentance 
and  faith  receive  the  grace  of  regeneration,  not  of  their 
own  merit,  but  of  God's  free  grace,  that  they  were  chosen 
in  Christ  to  salvation  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
and  that  nothing  can  separate  them  from  the  love  of  God, 
but  they  shall  be  kept  by  his  power  through  faith  unto 
salvation,  the  sure  and  final  proof  of  their  genuine  faith 
consisting  in  the  continuance  of  their  attachment  and 
obedience  to  Christ,  to  the  end  of  their  present  life." 

Here  it  is  most  explicitly  avowed  that  none  will  come 
to  Christ  without  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
that  all  who  were  regenerated  by  it  were  chosen  in 
Christ  to  this  distinction  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  and  that  nothing  can  defeat  their  salvation.  There 
is,  then,  this  grand  distinction  between  those  who  are 
saved  and  those  who  are  lost — the  former  were  elect- 
ed to  salvation  before  they  were  born,  the  latter  were 
not.  It  is  not  our  intention  to  controvert  this  doctrine, 
but  we  would  suggest,  that  if  the  songs  of  the  redeemed 
are  to  be  influenced  by  the  principles  on  which  their  sal- 
vation is  achieved,  and  any  of  these  non-elect,  whose  du- 
ty it  is  to  repent  of  their  sins  and  believe  in  Christ, 
should  happen  to  perform  their  duty,  and  be  saved,  they 
will  compose  a  choir  by  themselves  ;  for  while  others 
celebrate  eternal  election,  and  special  influences,  they 
will  be  compelled  to  hymn  the  praises  of  natural  ability, 
and  common  grace. 

Probably  some  of  our  readers  have  supposed,  that,  at 
least,  Mr.  Finney,  and  his  immediate  disciples,  are  free 
from  Calvinism.  This  is  not  the  case.  He  gives  his 
views   of  election  in  a  sermon  on   this  subject.     After 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  295 

stating  in  several  propositions  what  it  is  not,  he  proceeds 
to  state  positively  what  it  is.  He  says  :  "  But  by  the 
doctrine  of  election  is  intended  that  a  part  of  the  human 
family  are  chosen  to  eternal  salvation;  that  not  only  are 
they  chosen  as  a  whole,  but  as  individuals,  every  one  of 
whom  will  be  finally  saved."  He  gives  us  to  understand 
that  the  elect  are  chosen  to  salvation  previous  to  their 
conversion.  One  of  his  negative  propositions  says  :  "  Nor 
that  the  unconverted  elect  are  any  better  than  the  non- 
elect."  Again  he  proposes  to  "  show  when  the  election 
was  made,"  and  on  this  point  remarks,  "  The  apostle  says 
it  was  before  the  world  began,  or  from  eternity." 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  election  of  a  certain  number 
of  individuals  to  eternal  salvation,  from  eternity,  every  one 
of  whom  will  be  finally  saved,  leaving  none  to  be 
damned,  but  those  who  are  not  thus  elected. 

Mr.  F.  attempts  to  vindicate  the  proceedings  of  God,  in 
this  election,  from  the  charge  of  impartiality  and  injustice. 
He  tells  us  that  the  atonement  is  sufficient  for  all ;  that  God 
offers  mercy  to  all ;  that  God  as  strongly  desires  the  salva- 
tion of  the  non-elect ;  and  that  the  only  reason  why  the 
non-elect  will  not  be  saved,  is  because  they  pertinaciously 
refuse  salvation.  But  he  has  already  destroyed  this  pre- 
tence by  assuring  us  that  the  elect  were  no  better  than 
the  non-elect ;  this  therefore,  cannot  be  the  cause  of  the 
difference  in  their  destiny.  He  also  informs  us  that  God, 
in  confining  election  to  those  whom  he  has  elected,  has 
done  the  best  he  could  for  the  whole  universe.  He  inti- 
mates that  it  might  have  caused  terrible  confusion  had  he 
elected  more  persons,  or  others  than  those  he  has  elected ; 
that  in  "  the  best  possible  administration  of  his  govern- 
ment he  can  bring  sufficient  amount  of  moral  influence 
to  bear  on  the  elect  to  convert  them,  and  that  it  is  a  con- 
tradiction to  say  that  the  same  amount  of  moral  influence 
can  be   brought  to   bear  upon   eveiy  individual  of  the 


296  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM, 

human  family."  But  with  suitable  deference  to  Mr.  F.'s 
acumen,  we  feel  prompted  to  declare  that  we  cannot  see 
what  great  harm  could  have  resulted  to  angels  or  men, 
from  the  election,  conversion,  holiness,  and  salvation  of 
all,  on  the  same  principle  ;  since  the  atonement  is  suffi- 
cient for  all,  and  God  desired  the  salvation  of  all,  and  the 
moral  character  of  the  elect,  when  elected  to  salvation, 
was  no  better  than  that  of  the  reprobate. 

According  to  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  election,  it  is 
easy  to  prove  the  impartiality  and  justice  of  God  in 
saving  some  and  damning  others,  but  on  the  Calvinistic 
system  it  is  utterly  impossible. 

Dr.  Taylor,  of  New-Haven,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Hawes, 
in  which  he  states  his  theological  opinions  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  his  orthodoxy  was  called  in  question,  makes  the 
following  avowals : — 

"  I  believe, — 

"  2.  That  the  eternal  purposes  of  God  extend  to  all 
actual  events,  sin  not  excepted ;  or  that  God  foreordains 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass,  and  so  executes  these  purposes 
as  to  leave  the  free  moral  agency  of  man  unimpaired." 

"  9.  That  the  renewing  grace  of  God  is  special  (in  dis- 
tinction from  that  which  is  common,  and  is  resisted  by  the 
sinful  mind)  inasmuch  as  it  is  that  which  is  designed  to 
secure,  and  does  infallibly  secure,  the  conversion  of  the 
sinner. 

"  10.  That  all  who  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
elected  or  chosen  of  God  from  eternity,  that  they  should 
be  holy,  not  on  account  of  foreseen  faith  or  good  works, 
but  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will. 

"11.  That  all  who  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  will, 
through  his  continued  influence,  persevere  in  holiness  to 
the  end,  and  obtain  eternal  life. 

"  Such  is  my  faith  in  respect  to  some  of  the  leading 
doctrines  of  the  gospel.  These  doctrines  I  preach ;  these 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  297 

doctrines  I  teach  in  the  theological  department  of  this 
seminary ;  these  I  have  repeatedly  published  to  the  world. 
With  what  truth  or  justice  any  regard  me  as  a  '  teacher 
of  theology  introducing  heresy  into  our  churches,'  the 
candid  can  judge. 

"  But  it  may  be  asked  whether,  after  all,  there  are  not 
some  points  on  which  I  differ  from  my  brethren  generally, 
or,  at  least,  from  some  of  them  ?  I  answer.  It  would  be 
strange  if  any  two  men  should  be  found  to  agree  exactly 
in  all  the  minute  matters  of  religious  opinion.  With  res- 
pect, however,  to  what  is  properly  considered  the  ortho- 
dox or  Calvinistic  system  of  doctrines,  as  including  the 
great  facts  of  Christianity,  and  as  opposed  to,  and  dis- 
tinguished from,  the  Unitarian,  Pelagian,  and  Arminian 
systeins,  I  suppose  there  is  between  the  orthodox  ministry 
and  myself  an  entire  agreement." — Christian  Spectator, 
Vol.  iv,  No;  1. 

Such,  then,  are  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Taylor,  who  is 
supposed  by  many  to  be  irrecoverably  gone  from  Calvinism. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

CALVINISM     CONTINUED. 

Some  of  the  prominent  writers  of  the  New  School  party 
in  the  Calvinistic  Churches,  carry  their  Calvinism  so  far 
as  to  involve  in  doubt  the  doctrine  that  all  who  die  in  in- 
fancy are  saved. 

In  an  editorial  article  which  appeared  in  the  New- York 
Evangelist,  when  edited  by  the  Rev.  Joshua  Leavitt — a 
paper  which  had  its  origin  under  the  auspices  of  New 
Divinity,  and  has  been  devoted  to  its  interests  ever  since, 
may  be  found  the  following  sentiments  : — 
13* 


298  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

"  As  the  Holy  Ghost  has  not  seen  fit  to  give  us  definite 
instructions  on  these  points,  and  there  seems  to  be  nothing 
which  we  can  do  for  such  little  ones,  to  fit  them  for  hea- 
ven, would  any  thing  be  lost  to  the  cause  of  practical 
piety,  if  we  should  all  consent  to  leave  the  whole  case  of 
dying  infants  to  the  wisdom  and  benevolence  of  Him  who 
says,  '  The  secret  things  belong  unto  the  Lord  our  God  V  " 

Would  an  intelligent  writer,  who  firmly  believes  in  the 
salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy,  express  himself  thus  ? 
Would  he  place  the  whole  case  of  dying  infants  among  the 
secret  things  belonging  to  God,  and  with  reference  to 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  not  seen  fit  to  give  us  definite 
instructions,  and  suggest  that  there  is  nothing  gained  to 
the  cause  of  practical  piety  by  discussing  the  subject? 
This  is  not  the  language  of  Arminianism. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Cox  assumes  the  same  ground.  In  his 
work  on  Quakerism  he  remarks  : — 

"  There  are  questions  and  facts  unresolved  on  this 
article  of  the  '  common  faith,'  which  embarrass  really,  if 
not  equally,  every  theory  that  was  ever  soberly  framed 
for  its  elucidation.  Such  as  these, — Have  idiots  souls  ? 
What  becomes  of  them  ? — and  monsters,  what  of  them  ? — 
and  so  of  millions  of  unborn  children,  of  dead-born,  of  de- 
stroyed embryos,  &c.  ?  Were  all  these  represented  in 
Adam?  How  are  they  related  to  him — how  to  Christ? 
Where  there  is  no  evidence,  we  had  better  have  no 
theory.  The  Scripture  is  often  eloquent  in  its  omissions. 
If,  for  example,  it  had  affirmed  the  salvation  of  all  infants, 
or  any  class  of  them,  under  a  certain  age,  the  conse- 
quences had  been  terrible  !  What  fears  for  those  who 
should  die  ever  so  little  past  that  age  !  What  temptations 
to  infanticide  imder  it,  especially  to  guilty  parents  !  What 
vain  repinings  and  murmurings  among  some,  that  they  did 
not  die  earlier !  How  were  the  value  of  life  cheapened, 
and  a  due  preparation  for  death  obstructed  and  postponed ! 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  299 

These  difficulties  are  not  properly  the  opprohria  theologies, 
they  are  '  the  secret  things  which  belong  to  God.'  " — p.  669. 

It  is  clearly  the  doctrine  of  this  passage,  that  we  have 
no  more  information  respecting  the  fate  of  dying  infants, 
than  on  the  questions.  Have  idiots  souls  1  what  becomes 
of  monsters  ?  &c. ;  that  this  is  one  of  the  eloquent  omis- 
sions of  Scripture ;  that  we  have  no  information  on  this 
subject,  and  therefore  had  better  have  no  theory  ;  that  this 
is  one  of  the  secret  things  which  belong  to  God.  It  is 
argued  that  if  the  Scriptures  had  affirmed  the  salvation  of 
all  infants,  or  any  class  of  them,  under  a  certain  age,  it 
would  have  led  to  terrible  consequences — to  fears  for  those 
who  might  die  ever  so  little  past  that  age — to  vain  re- 
pinings  among  some,  that  they  did  not  die  earlier — to  a 
cheapening  of  the  value  of  human  life  and  the  postpone- 
ment of  the  preparation  for  death — and,  finally,  to  strong 
temptations-  to  infanticide. 

Mr.  Duffield  adverts  to  this  subject  in  the  work  to  which 
we  have  so  often  referred.  His  language  is  characterized 
by  great  caution,  but  yet  sufficiently  indicates  the  position 
he  occupies.  In  the  chapter  on  the  "  Moral  Condition  of 
Deceased  Infants,"  he  remarks, — 

"  The  death  of  the  infant  is  no  more  proof  of  its  final 
condemnation,  than  the  death  of  the  believer.  On  the  con- 
trary, as  the  infant  has  neither  done  good  nor  evil,  the  pre- 
sumption arising  from  its  death  would  rather  seem  to  be, 
that  inasmuch  as  its  powers,  if  it  had  remained  in  this 
world,  would  have  been  developed  in  sin,  so  its  removal 
to  another  and  essentially  different  world — where  all  its 
modes  of  acquiring  knowledge,  and  also  of  acting,  will  be 
essentially  different — will  most  probably  conduce  to  in- 
stantaneous and  lofty  exhibitions  of  holiness. 

"It  is  true,  that  the  presumption  may  be  applied. the 
other  way.  Inasmuch  as  God  visits  on  the  infant  the  sin 
of  Adam — subjecting  it  to  disease  and  death,  and  placing 


300  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

it  in  a  world,  and  under  the  operation  of  laws  which 
operate  with  certainty  to  secure  its  voluntary  sinning,  as 
soon  as  capable  of  moral  agency  ;  and  inasmuch  as  one 
of  the  consequences  of  such  rebellion  against  God  is,  that 
a  change  will  take  place,  either  sooner  or  later,  in  the  out- 
ward circumstances  and  relations  of  men  in  this  world,  by 
■virtue  of  which  much  more  rapid  and  frightful  develop- 
ments of  iniquity  shall  be  made — why  may  we  not  con- 
clude that,  in  the  exercise  of  his  sovereignty,  God  sees  fit 
to  anticipate  such  things,  and  transfer  one  and  another,  forth- 
with as  they  come  into  this  world,  to  a  new  scene  of  exist- 
ence, where  the  full  and  final  results  of  Adam's  apostacy 
are  displayed  1  Especially  so,  it  might  be  added,  since  the 
promise  of  grace,  iii  the  covenant,  seems  to  contemplate 
none  other  than  the  children  of  believers.  '  I  will  be  a  God 
to  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee  ;'  and  since  there  can 
be  no  more  inconsistency  with  divine  justice  to  place  an 
infant  in  circmnstances  where  it  will  become  a  sinner 
sooner  than  later,  provided  there  is  not  to  place  it  in  such 
circumstances  at  all.  We  confess,  therefore,  that  nothing 
ought  to  be  rashly  and  positively  asserted  on  this  subject 
either  way. 

"  It  would  seem  as  if  God  had  not  seen  it  proper  to  give 
us  any  decisive  information  on  this  subject ;  and  we  can 
see  great  wisdom  and  goodness  too,  in  his  keeping  us  in 
absolute  ignorance  on  this  point.  Were  the  former  pre- 
sumption an  established  truth,  and  reverently  received 
among  men,  there  is  no  knowing  what  mischievous  con- 
sequences might  result  from  it,  nor  how  far  men,  to  render 
their  darling  babes  eternally  happy,  might  be  tempted  to 
become  the  murderers  of  their  own  offspring.  And  were 
the  latter  an  established  truth,  with  what  heart-rending 
agony  would  every  sensitive  soid  see  the  infant  consigned 
to  the  tomb.  It  is  well  that  Providence  has  thrown  an 
impenetrable  veil  over  this  thing.     Yet,  if  we  may  be 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  301 

allowed  to  indulge  a  fond  conjecture,  the  presumption 
seems  strongest  that  the  death  of  the  infant  is  a  procedure 
of  mercy,  rather  than  of  vindictive  justice.  For,  as  the 
great  rule  of  procedure  on  the  judgment  day  shall  be,  that 
God  'will  render  unto  every  one  according  to  the  deeds 
done  in  the  body,  whether  they  be  good  or  evil,'  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  shall  receive  their  award  and 
allotment  upon  a  principle  which  it  is  manifest,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  cannot  be  adopted  with  regard  to  those 
dying  in  infancy." — p.  351. 

The  import  of  this  passage  is  obvious,  notwithstanding 
the  cloudy  verbiage  in  which  some  of  its  awful  arguments 
are  clothed.  It  assumes  that  God  has  not  seen  fit  to  give 
us  any  decisive  information  on  this  subject — that  he  has 
thrown  an  impenetrable  veil  over  it — that  he  has  kept  us 
in  absolute  ignorance  on  this  point — that  he  has  manifested 
great  wisdom  and  goodness  in  this  procedure — and  that  it 
would  be  rash  in  us  to  assert  any  thing  on  this  subject, 
positively,  either  way.  It  contains  several  presumptions 
in  favour  of  the  supposition  that  some  infants  are  damned. 
Mr.  D.  cannot  see,  if  God  may  subject  the  infant  to  dis- 
ease and  death,  and  place  it  in  a  world  where  it  will  com- 
mit sin,  and  may  become  a  very  wicked  man  or  woman, 
and  from  which  it  may  pass  into  the  state  and  place  of 
final  punishment,  why,  in  the  exercise  of  his  sovereignty, 
he  may  not  also  "  anticipate  such  things"  by  transferring 
children  to  hell  "  forthwith,"  as  soon  "  as  they  come  into 
the  world."  There  is  also  a  presumption  to  this  effect,  in 
the  estimation  of  Mr.  D.,  arising  from  the  well-known 
doctrine,  held  by  many,  if  not  all  Calvinists,  that  "  the 
promise  of  grace,  in  the  covenant,  seems  to  contemplate 
none  other  than  the  children  of  believers."  He  further 
concludes,  that  if  there  be  no  inconsistency  with  divine 
justice  in  placing  an  infant  in  this  world,  in  which  it  will 
become  a  sinner,  there  can  be  none  in  placing  it  sooner 


302  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

than  later  in  another  world,  where  it  will  be  a  sinne/. 
The  rest  you  must  imagine. 

He  argues  against  the  supposition  that  all  infants,  dying 
in  infancy,  are  saved.  If  it  were  "  an  established  truth, 
and  reverently  believed,  there  is  no  knowing  what  mis- 
chievous consequences  might  result  from  it,  nor  how  far 
men,  to  render  their  darling  babes  eternally  happy,  might 
be  tempted  to  become  the  murderers  of  their  own  offspring." 
It  is  true  he  finds  presumptions  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question — but  they  are  feeble  and  indefinite.  As  the  in- 
fant has  done  neither  good  nor  evil,  and  as,  in  death,  it  is 
removed  to  "  another  and  essentially  different  world,"  the 
circumstances  amid  which  it  is  placed  "  will  most  pro- 
bably conduce  to  instantaneous  and  lofty  exhibitions  of 
holiness."  He  is  not  sure  that  this  will  be  the  case,  but 
thinks  it  probable.  And  indeed  any  one  must  perceive 
that  this  will  depend  very  much  on  the  character  of  the 
world  to  which  it  is  removed,  which  is  the  very  thing  to 
be  ascertained,  and  about  which  there  is  so  much  un- 
certainty. Again :  if  he  "  may  be  allowed  to  indulge  a 
fond  conjecture,  the  presumption  seems  strongest  that  the 
death  of  the  infant  is  a  procedure  of  mercy  rather  than  of 
vindictive  justice."  What  he  means  by  a  procedure  of 
mercy,  we  are  not  certain.  He  may  mean,  for  all  that  we 
can  see,  that  as  none  but  the  children  of  believers  are  in- 
cluded in  the  covenant  of  mercy,  and  as  God  can,  as  con- 
sistently with  justice,  send  non-elect  infants  to  hell,  as 
bring  them  into  this  world,  keep  them  here  until  they 
become  adult  sinners,  and  then  consign  them  to  that 
destiny ;  that  to  cut  them  off"  and  damn  them  in  infancy 
would  be  merciful  rather  than  vindictive,  inasmuch  as  their 
living  longer  would  only  increase  their  responsibility,  guilt, 
and  misery.  But  if  we  give  these  terms  the  most  favour- 
able construction,  still  he  only  indulges  a  fond  conjecture 
on  this  point — a  fond  conjecture  that  the  presumption  on 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  303 

the  side  of  mercy  seems  the  strongest.  Nor  is  there  any 
thing  definite  to  be  gathered  from  the  suggestion,  that  the 
principle  on  which  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  will  re- 
ceive their  award,  cannot  be  applied  to  infants,  since  there 
are  very  strong  presumptions  in  Mr.  D.'s  mind,  of  the 
existence  of  some  principle  on  which  they  may  be 
damned. 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  a  note  to  his  sermon  on  "  The  Way  of 
Salvation,"  disavows  the  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  in- 
fants, not  only  in  behalf  of  himself,  but  also  of  the  whole 
"  Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country,"  and  of  "  Calvin- 
ists  of  the  present  day."  "  It  is  admitted,"  he  says,  "  with 
regret,  that  it  has  been  held,  by  a  few,  that  infants  may  he 
lost.  This  must  be  conceded  in  regard  to  Dr.  Gill,  Dr. 
Twisse,  and  a  few  others."  He  also  denies  that  the  doc- 
trine ever  "  had  any  essential  connection  with  Calvinism." 
"  It  grew,'-'  he  says,  "  out  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin,  or  our  acting  in  him — a  sentiment  as  fully  held, 
in  principle,  by  Arminians,  as  it  ever  was  by  their  op- 
ponents." He  says  that  "  an  assertion  that  such  an 
opinion  is  held — that  it  is  maintained  that  '  there  are  in- 
fants in  hell  not  a  span  long,'  unless  the  cases  where  it 
has  been  done  are  distinctly  and  specifically  referred  to, 
in  the  language  of  the  law  is  slander." 

We  have  no  disposition  to  dispute  about  the  length  of 
the  infants  whose  fate  we  are  discussing,  and  certainly  as 
little  desire  to  be  prosecuted  for  slander ;  but  we  have 
made  up  our  mind  to  run  the  awful  risk  of  disputing  the 
correctness  of  some  of  Mr.  B.'s  positions.  We  affirm  that 
the  doctrine  has  an  essential  connection  with  Calvinism. 
It  results  by  the  plainest  process  of  deduction,  not  only 
from  the  entire  system,  but  from  several  of  its  leading 
doctrines  taken  separately. 

Take,  first,  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election,  as 
stated  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  of  Mr. 


304,  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

B.'s  Church,  and  as  asserted  by  himself  in  his  notes  on 
Romans  ix.  If  God  has  elected  to  eternal  salvation  a  de- 
finite number  of  individuals — if  these  were  elected  before 
they  were  born — before  the  foundation  of  the  world — even 
from  eternity — if  all  these  will  be  infallibly  saved,  and 
none  others — what  is  the  most  obvious  inference  respect- 
ing the  future  condition  of  those  infants  dying  in  infancy, 
who  are  not  included  among  the  elect?  There  can  be 
but  one  answer,  and  that  is — that  they  are  lost.  The  in- 
ference is  strengthened,  if  it  be  possible  to  add  to  its 
strength,  by  the  provision  which  Mr.  B.'s  creed  makes  for 
the  salvation  of  elect  infants.  "  Elect  infants  dying  in 
infancy  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the 
Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 
.  pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are 
incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
word."  This  provision  is  made  for  elect  infants  in  view 
of  the  existence  of  two  classes,  and  in  contradistinction  to 
those  who  are  non-elect.  But  if  it  is  made  for  them,  and 
them  alone,  what  is  to  become  of  the  other  class  ?  Will 
they  be  saved  without  regeneration  "  by  Christ  through 
the  Spirit  ?"  This  will  not  answer.  It  is  curious  to  ob- 
serve how  Mr.  B.  attempts  to  make  it  appear  that  the 
language  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  respecting  elect  in- 
fants does  not  imply  that  others  may  be  lost.  This  infer- 
ence, he  says,  "  cannot  be  sustained.  The  authors  of  the 
Confession,  like  the  sacred  writers,  were  in  the  habit  of 
calling  all  those  who  were  saved,  '  the  elect.'  They 
spoke  of  inl'ants  saved,  as  a  part  of  the  elect — a  part  of  the 
race  chosen  to  salvation.  They  affirm  not  that  any  are 
lost ;  nor  can  it  be  proved  that  they  meant  to  imply  it." 
It  is  not  necessary  to  our  argument  to  maintain  that  they 
ajirm  positively  that  any  are  lost,  or  to  decide  what  they 
meant  to  imply.  The  question  at  present  is  simply,  What 
is  the  logical  inference  from  what  they  do  assert  ? 


NEW  DIVIN'ITY CALVINISM.  305 

We  affirm  it  to  be  that  non-elect  infants,  dying  in  in- 
fancy, are  not  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through 
the  Spirit.  Mr.'  B.  denies  that  any  such  inference  fol- 
lows. He  says  that  the  framers  of  the  Confession  were 
merely  classing  saved  infants  among  the  elect.  But  this 
mode  of  stating  the  case  does  not  relieve  the  difficulty. 
For  if  some  are  elected  to  salvation,  while  others  are  not 
— and  we  are  gravely  informed  that  all  infants  saved  are 
of  the  elect — what  is  the  obvious  inference  respecting 
non-elect  infants  ?  They  must  be  classed  with  the  un- 
saved. The  distinction  between  saved  and  unsaved  in- 
fants is  as  clearly  recognised  by  Mr.  B.  as  the  distinction 
between  elect  and  non-elect  infants.  Thus  his  explanation 
leads  directly  to  the  result  which  it  was  intended  to  ob- 
viate. The  fact  that  he  resorted  to  such  an  explanation 
shows  that  he  felt  himself  to  be  in  great  difficulty ;  for 
any  person, of  ordinary  intelligence  can  perceive,  at  one 
glance,  that  the  authors  of  the  Confession  were  not  merely 
representing  infants  saved  as  a  part  of  the  elect.  They 
were  stating  by  what  means  elect  infants  are  regenerated 
and  saved  ;  and  they  do  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  restrict  the 
application  of  the  specified  means  to  those  who  are  elect. 
Our  inference  is  sustained  also  by  direct  assertion  in  an- 
other part  of  the  same  creed,  where  it  is  said,  that  "  as 
God  hath  appointed  the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by 
the  eternal  and  most  free  purpose  of  his  will,  foreordained 
all  the  means  thereunto.  Wherefore,  they  who  are  elected, 
being  fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  hy  Christ,  are  effectu- 
ally called  unto  faith  in  Christ,  by  his  Spirit  working  in 
due  season  ;  are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  kept  by 
his  power,  through  faith  unto  salvation.  Neither  are  any 
other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified,  adopted, 
sanctified,  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only." 

It  will  not  do  for  Calvinists  to  say  that  all  infants  are 
elect ;  for  then,  according  to  their  scheme,  all  adults  would 


306  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

be  elect,  and  universal  salvation  virould  be  the  result.  Nor 
is  this  inconsistency  chargeable  on  Mr.  B.  He  gives  us 
his  views  of  the  application  of  the  doctrine  of  election  to 
infants  in  his  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  On  the 
words  of  the  apostle,  "  Neither,  because  they  are  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children,  but  in  Isaac  shall  thy 
seed  be  called,"  ix,  7,  he  remarks,  "  Shall  thy  seed,  &c. 
— Thy  true  people.  This  implied  a  selection,  or  choice  ; 
and,  therefore,  the  doctrine  of  election  was  illustrated  in 
the  very  commencement  of  the  history  of  the  nation  ;  and 
as  God  had  then  made  such  a  distinction,  he  might  still  do 
it.  As  he  had  then  rejected  a  part  of  the  natural  descend- 
ants of  Abraham,  so  he  might  still  do  it.  This  is  the 
argument  the  apostle  is  pursuing."  And  on  the  words 
which  occur  in  the  next  verse,  "  but  the  children  of  the 
promise  are  counted  for  the  seed,"  he  remarks,  "  Jire  count- 
ed— Are  regarded,  or  reckoned.  God  reckons  things  as 
they  are  ;  and  therefore  designed  that  they  should  be  his 
true  children.  As  the  seed — The  spiritual  children  of 
God ;  the  partakers  of  his  mercy  and  salvation.  This 
refers,  doubtless,  to  spiritual  privileges  and  to  salvation  ; 
and  therefore  has  relation,  not  to  nations  as  such,  but  to 
individuals."  And  on  verses  10  and  11,  which  relate  to 
the  immediate  posterity  of  Isaac  and  Rebecca,  he  says, 
"  Not  only  is  the  principle  of  making  a  distinction  among 
the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham  thus  settled  by  the 
promise,  but  it  is  still  further  seen  and  illustrated  in  the 
birth  of  the  two  sons  of  Isaac.  He  had  shown  that  the 
principle  of  thus  making  a  distinction  among  the  posterity 
of  Abraham  was  recognsied  in  the  original  promise,  thus 
proving  that  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham  were  of  course 
to  be  saved  ;  and  he  now  proceeds  to  show  that  the  prin- 
ciple was  recognised  in  the  case  of  his  posterity  in  the 
family  of  Isaac.  And  he  shows  that  it  is  not  according  to 
any  natural  principles  that  the  selection  was  made  ;  that 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  SOT 

he  not  only  made  a  distinction  between  Jacob  and  Esau, 
but  that  he  did  it  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  choosing 
the  younger  to  be  the  object  of  his  favour,  and  rejecting 
the  elder,  who,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  times,  was 
supposed  to  be  entitled  to  peculiar  honour  and  rights.  And 
in  order  to  prove  that  this  was  done  according  to  his  own 
good  pleasure,  he  shows  that  the  distinction  was  made 
before  they  were  born ;  before  they  had  formed  any  cha- 
racter ;  and,  consequently,  in  such  a  way  that  it  could  not 
be  pretended  that  it  was  in  consequence  of  any  works  they 
had  performed." 

In  these  quotations  it  is  maintained  by  Mr.  B.  that  God 
made  a  distinction  among  the  immediate  descendants  of 
Abraham,  electing  one  of  his  sons  and  his  posterity,  and 
rejecting  the  other  and  his  posterity ;  that  the  same  dis- 
tinction was  made  in  the  family  of  Isaac  between  Jacob 
and  Esau,  "  choosing  the  younger  to  be  the  object  of  his 
favour,  and  rejecting  the  elder,;"  that  this  was  done  ac- 
cording to  the  good  pleasure  of  God,  which  is  proved  by 
the  fact  that  he  made  this  distinction  between  them  "  be- 
fore they  were  born  ;  before  they  had  formed  any  charac- 
ter ;  and,  consequently,  in  such  a  way  that  it  could  not  be 
pretended  that  it  was  in  consequence  of  any  works  which 
they  had  performed  ;"  that  the  election  and  rejection  "  re- 
fer, doubtless,  to  spiritual  privileges  and  salvation,"  and 
have  relation  "  to  individuals  ;"  and  that  those  elected  are 
chosen  to  be  "  the  spiritual  children  of  God,  the  partakers 
of  his  mercy  and  salvation  ;"  and,  further,  that  as  God  has 
made  this  distinction  in  times  that  are  past,  he  may  "  still 
do  it." 

We  now  ask,  what  must  have  become  of  those  children 
who  were  not  chosen  to  spiritual  privileges  and  salvation, 
but  rejected,  had  they  died  in  infancy  ?  Would  they  have 
been  saved  ?  Certainly  not;  for  that  would  have  destroyed 
the  distinction  between  them  and  the  others.  It  would  have 


308  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

proved  Inat  they,  too,  were  chosen  to  salvation.     The  in- 
ference is  inevitable  that  they  must  have  been  lost. 

The  only  way  that  remains  of  avoiding  this  troublesome 
inference  is,  by  adopting  the  hypothesis  that  none  but 
elect  infants  die  in  infancy.  Whether  Mr.  B.  intends  to 
take  refuge  in  this  or  not,  we  cannot  positively  affirm  ;  but 
his  language  strongly  implies  it.  In  the  first  place,  he 
admits,  with  regret,  that  a  few  have  held  the  doctrine  that 
infants  may  be  lost.  Of  course  he  does  not  hold  that  doc- 
trine. In  the  second  place,  he  considers  all  saved  infants 
as  belonging  to  the  elect.  If,  then,  no  infants  die  in  in- 
fancy but  what  are  saved,  and  all  saved  infants  are  of  the 
elect,  it  follows,  incontestably,  that  none  but  elect  chil- 
dren die  in  infancy.  But  the  mind  that  can  seriously  en- 
tertain such  a  supposition  must  have  a  predilection  for 
absurdity.  It  must  be  prepared  to  believe,  that  while  in- 
fants are  divided  into  two  classes,  elect  and  non-elect,  of 
all  the  infants  that  have  died  of  ordinary  sickness,  of  epi- 
demics, or  by  accident,  or  war,  or  famine,  or  pestilence, 
every  non-elect  infant  has  escaped,  and  those  of  the  elect 
alone  have  fallen ;  that  when  the  cruel  edict  of  Herod 
caused  the  blood  of  infants  to  be  poured  out  like  water, 
and  when  that  of  Pharaoh  consigned  them  by  thousands 
to  the  monsters  of  the  Nile,  not  one  single  victim  was 
taken  from  among  the  reprobates — still  the  slain  were  all 
God's  elect ;  that  when  the  judgments  of  God  are  abroad, 
he  extends  the  mysterious  protection  of  his  providence, 
not  to  those  who  are  destined  to  be  regenerated  and  saved, 
and  become  the  salt  of  the  earth,  but  to  those  who  are  to 
remain  impenitent  and  rebellious  ;  that  in  the  whole  ante- 
diluvian world  that  perished  by  the  flood,  there  was  not 
one  non-elect  infant,  or  if  there  were,  it  was  in  the  family 
of  Noah,  and  was  carefully  preserved,  while  the  elect  were 
drowned  ;  that  if  God  had  suspended  this  judgment  for  a 
while,  he  would  have  had  no  reason  to  complain  that  all 


NEW  DIVINITl' CALVINISM.  309 

flesh  had  corrupted  its  way,  as  there  Avoiild  have  been  a 
generation  of  his  own  chosen  people,  equal  in  number  to 
all  the  infants  that  perished  by  the  deluge  ;  that  there  was 
not  a  single  non-elect  infant  in  the  cities  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  when  those  cities  were  destroyed,  but  that 
every  infant  consumed  by  that  fearful  conflagration  was 
of  the  elect.  If  this  supposition  be  true,  it  may  be  made 
a  question,  whether,  in  the  case  of  non-elect  infants,  "the 
flesh  will  quiver  where  the  pincers  tear,"  or  "  the  blood 
follow  where  the  knife  is  driven."  But  it  is  needless  to 
enlarge  on  this  point. 

The  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  infants  results,  inevita- 
bly, from  the  doctrine  that  Christ  did  not  make  an  atonement 
for  all.  If  all  who  are  saved  are  saved  on  the  ground  of 
atonement,  those  for  whom  Christ  has  not  died  must  be 
lost.  This  conclusion  applies  equally  to  children  and  adults. 

Precisely  the  same  conclusion  follows  the  doctrine 
which  extends  the  atonement  to  all,  but  limits^  its  applica- 
tion to  a  part.  This  is  Mr.  B.'s  theory.  The  application 
of  the  atonement  is  supposed  to  be  necessary  to  salvation, 
but  this  is  confined  to  the  elect  by  the  divine  decree.  Of 
course,  all  to  whom  the  atonement  is  not  applied  must  be 
lost,  whether  infants  or  adults. 

This  blood-freezing  tenet  is  also  deducible  from  the  very 
popular  doctrine  of  the  "  perseverance  of  the  saints,"  as 
held  by  Calvinists.  According  to  this  doctrine,  if  any  are 
finally  lost,  it  is  because  they  were  never  in  grace — never 
in  the  favour  of  God — never  within  the  limits  of  that  king- 
dom, the  subjects  of  which  are  heirs  of  salvation.  For 
had  they  ever  been  in  this  condition,  they  would  have  been 
saved  infallibly.  It  follows,  then,  that  if  any  are  damned 
at  mature  age,  they  were  not  in  the  favour  of  God  Avhile 
infants.  If  they  were,  they  must  have  so  continued  while 
adults,  and  so  have  been  saved.  What,  then,  must  have 
been  the  fate  of  those  who  are  lost,  had  they  died  in 


310  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

infancy  ?  Must  they  not  have  been  lost?  Take  the  case  of 
the  "rich  man,"  spoken  of  in  the  gospels,  for  example. 
It  is  declared  by  the  Saviour  that  "  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his 
eyes."  Now  it  is  undeniable,  according  to  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  final  perseverance,  that  this  man  was  never  in 
the  favour  of  God — that  he  never,  not  even  Avhile  he  was 
an  infant,  stood  in  that  relation  to  God  which  would  have 
secured  to  him  eternal  life,  supposing  him  to  have  died  in 
that  condition,  otherwise  he  must  have  continued  in  that 
condition,  and  so  have  been  finally  saved.  What  then 
must  have  become  of  the  rich  man  had  he  died  in  infancy  ? 
The  question  admits  of  but  one  answer. 

Perhaps  an  attempt  may  be  made  to  evade  the  force  of 
this  reasoning,  by  affirming  that  all  infants  are  in  the  fa- 
vour of  God,  and  therefore  safe,  dying  in  infancy.  This 
is,  indeed,  the  very  truth.  But  suppose  the  doctrine  of 
final  perseverance,  as  held  by  Calvinists,  to  be  true,  and 
it  will  follow,  indubitably,  that  all  adults  are  in  the  favour 
of  God,  since  all  adults,  except  Adam  and  Eve,  were  once 
infants.  Thus  we  are  fairly  landed  on  the  shores  of  Uni- 
versalism.  The  only  way  to  escape  Universalism  on  the 
one  hand,  or  the  damnation  of  infants  on  the  other,  is  to 
abandon  this  doctrine  of  "  infallible  perseverance." 

It  may  possibly  be  suggested  that  the  arrangement 
which  secures  the  infallible  perseverance  of  the  saints 
does  not  take  effect  until  conversion,  and  that,  although 
the  infant  is  in  the  favour  of  God,  it  may  lose  that  advan- 
tage by  personal  transgression,  as  soon  as  it  arrives  at  the 
period  of  moral  accountability.  It  would  seem,  then,  that 
men  and  women  may  fall  into  sin  after  their  conversion — 
may  deny  their  Lord,  and  commit  the  sin  of  adultery,  and 
idolatry,  like  Peter,  and  David,  and  Solomon,  and  yet  re- 
main in  a  state  of  security,  while  the  poor  child  f\ills  un- 
der the  condemnation  of  the  law  of  God,  and  is  exposed 
to  hell  for  the  first  childish  transgression.     Can  any  one 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  311 

believe  that  God  administers  the  plan  of  salvation  on  prin- 
ciples so  very  discordant,  and  so  grossly  partial  to  the 
grown-up  sinner  ?  Besides,  such  a  subterfuge  would  be  in 
direct  denial  of  "  the  immutability  of  the  decree  of  elec- 
tion," which  applies  equally  to  infants  and  adults,  and  on 
which,  the  Confession  says,  the  "  perseverance  of  the 
saints  depends."  It  would  be  destructive  of  the  entire 
system  of  Calvinism. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

CALVINISM     CONTINUED. 

The  doctrine  which  excludes  from  the  covenant  of 
grace  a  portion  of  mankind,  leads  directly  to  the  inference 
that  infants  may  be  lost.  This  doctrine  is  advanced  by 
Mr.  Duffield  in  the  following  passage,  as  furnishing  a  pre- 
sumption on  the  side  of  the  damnation  of  infants.  "  Es- 
pecially so,  it  might  be  added,  since  the  promise  of  grace, 
in  the  covenant,  seems  to  contemplate  none  other  than  the 
children  of  believers,  '  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee.'  "  Now,  if  no  human  being  can  be  saved 
but  by  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  that  covenant  includes 
a  particular  class  of  mankind,  and  "  none  other,"  the  dam- 
nation of  the  rest  is  inevitable,  whether  they  die  in  in- 
fancy or  old  age ;  and  the  appalling  presumption  of  Mr. 
D.  is  amply  sustained. 

Although  it  is  essential  to  Calvinism  thus  to  limit  the 
subjects  of  covenant  mercy,  it  is  not  essential  to  it  to  in- 
clude all  the  children  of  believers  in  the  covenant,  or  con- 
fine its  advantages  to  them.  The  system  would  be  unim- 
paired by  the  supposition,  that  God  elects  tlie  subjects  of 
salvation  from  among  the  children  both  of  believers  and 


312  NEW  0IVIMTY — CALVINISM. 

unbelievers,  and  rejects  others  on  the  same  principle. 
The  doctrine  that  all  the  children  of  believers,  and  none 
other,  are  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  probably  had 
its  origin  in  the  emergencies  which  have  grown  out  of 
parental  sensibility.  It  will  be  found  a  hard  task  to  re- 
concile a  religious  community  to  a  system  of  doctrine 
which  spreads  so  gloomy  an  uncertainty  over  the  destiny 
of  their  deceased  little  ones.  But  that  difficulty  is  oppor- 
tunely removed  by  the  assurance,  that  the  children  of  be- 
hevers  are  all  safe.  Let  them  be  convinced  of  this,  and 
they  will,  probably,  not  only  be  reconciled  to  the  system, 
but  feel  a  strong  attachment  to  it.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Miller, 
of  Princeton,  in  an  essay  on  infant  baptism,  founds  an  ar- 
gument in  favour  of  "  the  church  membership  of  the  infant 
seed  of  believers"  on  parental  sympathy.  "  The  dose  and 
endearing  connection  between  parents  and  children"  he  says, 
"  affords  a  strong  argument  in  its  favour.  The  voice  of  na- 
ture is  lifted  up,  and  pleads  most  powerfully  in  behalf  of 
our  cause.  The  thought  of  severing  parents  from  their 
offspring,  in  regard  to  the  most  interesting  relations  in 
which  it  has  pleased  God  in  his  adorable  providence  to 
place  them,  is  equally  repugnant  to  Christian  feeling  and 
natural  law.  Can  it  be,  my  friends,  that  when  the  stem 
is  in  the  Church  the  branch  is  out  of  it  ?  Can  it  be  tha* 
when  the  parent  is  within  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Re- 
deemer, his  offspring,  bone  of  his  bone,  and  flesh  of  his 
flesh,  have  no  connection  with  it  ?  It  is  not  so  in  any  other 
society  that  the  great  moral  Governor  of  the  world  ever 
formed.  It  is  not  so  in  civil  society.  Children  are  born 
citizens  of  the  state  in  which  the  parents  resided  at  the 
time  of  their  birth.  In  virtue  of  their  birth  they  are  ple- 
nary citizens,  boimd  by  all  the  duties,  and  entitled  to  all 
the  privileges  of  that  relation,  whenever  they  become  ca- 
pable of  exercising  them.  From  these  duties  they  cannot 
be  liberated — of  these  privileges  they  cannot  be  deprived, 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  313 

but  by  the  commission  of  crime.  But  why  should  this 
principle  be  set  aside  in  the  Church  of  God  ?  Surely  it  is 
not  less  obvious  or  less  powerful  in  grace  than  in  nature." 
— Preslyterian  Tracts,  vol.  i. 

The  effect  of  this  reasoning  is  to  extend  a  saving  interest 
in  the  covenant  of  mercy  to  all  the  children  of  believers. 
For  what  are  church  membership,  and  baptism,  if  eternally 
separated  from  the  spiritual  blessings  necessary  to  sal- 
vation ?  Surely,  if  the  thought  of  excluding  "  the  infant 
seed  of  believers"  from  these  outward  privileges  would  be 
so  revolting  to  "  natural  law"  and  "  Christian  feeling,"  it 
would  be  much  more  so  to  suppose  them  excluded  from 
salvation,  and  thus  severed  from  their  parents.  And  this 
is  what  the  author  intends.  He  tells  us  that  the  covenant 
*'  had  a  respect  to  spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  blessings." 

This  comfortable  notion,  however,  when  connected  with 
the  system  of  Calvinism,  leads  to  endless  perplexities  and 
contradictions  ;  for,  if  all  who  are  entitled  to  the  spiritual 
blessings  of  the  new  covenant  are  elect,  and  must  con- 
tinue in  that  relation,  it  will  follow  that  the  whole  pos- 
terity of  the  first  faithful  parents  must  be  saved.  Noah 
was  a  righteous  man ;  all  his  cliildren  are  therefore  safe  ; 
and  consequently  all  their  children  ;  and,  inasmuch  as  the 
whole  post-diluvian  population  descended  from  him,  every 
one  who  has  lived  since  the  flood  is  safe.  Moreover,  we 
have  only  to  suppose  that  Adam  and  Eve  were  at  any 
time  the  true  children  of  God,  and  all  the  world  is  safe. 

Thus  we  see  that  this  consolatory  provision  destroys 
Calvinism,  by  running  it  into  Universalism.  Nor  is  this 
result  avoided  by  the  restricting  clause  ;  since  to  restrict 
the  great  and  saving  benefits  of  the  covenant  to  the  chil- 
dren of  believers,  is,  in  eflfect,  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
to  restrict  them  to  every  descendant  of  Adam. 

We  have  been  led  to  think  that  these  difficulties  have 
not  wholly  escaped  the  observation  of  the  advocates  of 

14 


314  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

this  doctrine.  On  reading  a  work  entitled  "  Household 
Consecration,"  by  Rev.  N.  E.  Johnson,  (a  work  evidently 
based  on  this  principle,  and  which,  besides  its  inconsist- 
encies, contains  many  excellences,  and  is,  on  the  whole, 
highly  creditable  to  the  heart  and  the  intellect  of  its  au- 
thor,) we  observe  that,  in  tracing  the  principle,  both  before 
and  after  the  flood,  he  very  wisely  waits  until  there  are 
several  distinct  families  in  existence  before  he  brings  it 
into  operation,  and  in  this  way  he  obtains  the  distinction 
of  "  pious  and  impious  families." 

The  heterogeneousness  of  this  doctrine,  with  the  sys- 
tem in  which  it  is  incorporated,  is  illustrated  by  a  passage 
in  Barnes'  Notes  on  Romans.  The  doctrine  is  supposed 
to  be  inculcated  by  the  terms  of  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  Abraham :  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee,  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee."  But  we  find  Calvinism  making  a 
distinction  in  this  particular  among  the  immediate  de- 
scendants of  Abraham.  "  On  Rom.  ix,  7  :  "  Neither  be- 
cause they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham  are  they  all  children," 
&c.,  Mr.  B.  remarks,  "  This  implies  a  selection  or  choice: 
and  therefore  the  doctrine  of  election  was  illustrated  in  the 
very  commencement  of  the  nation,"  &c.  Thus  the  doc- 
trine is  fairly  exploded :  Abraham  had  but  two  children, 
one  of  which  was  included  in,  and  the  other  excluded  from 
the  covenant.  But  Mr.  B.  is  not  at  all  daunted  by  this 
aspect  of  affairs.  He  considers  the  doctrine  established, 
rather  than  endangered  by  this  distinction.  On  verse  10, 
he  remarks,  "  He  had  shown  that  the  principle  of  thus 
making  a  distinction  among  the  posterity  of  Abraham  was 
recognised  in  the  original  promise  ;  thus  proving  that  all 
the  descendants  of  Abraham  were  of  course  to  he  saved.'''' 
Now,  then,  we  suppose  that  this  principle  will  have  fair 
play,  and  be  subject  to  no  more  interruptions.  Is  it  so  ? 
Will  all  the  descendants  of  Abraham  in  the  line  of  Isaac 
be  saved  as  a  matter  of  course  ?    So  Mr.  B.  explicitly  do- 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  315 

clares.  But  the  genius  of  Calvinism  suddenly  appears 
with  frowning  brow — Mr.  B.  recognises  his  approach, 
pays  his  profoundest  homage  to  the  awful  apparition,  and 
consents  that  a  distinction  shall  be  made  among  the  de- 
scendants of  Abraham,  in  the  very  next  generation — that 
Jacob  shall  be  chosen,  and  Esau  rejected  ;  and  that  such 
distinctions  in  families  shall  be  made  throughout  all  future 
generations.  The  grim  visitant  relaxes  his  frown,  smiles 
horrible  satisfaction  at  the  sacrifice,  and  retires.  Mr. 
B.  must  not,  however,  expect  quite  so  submissive  a  de- 
ference to  his  reasonings  on  the  part  of  Arminians,  when 
he  still  insists  that  these  distinctions  among  the  descend- 
ants of  Abraham  are  not  only  consistent  with  the  salvation 
of  all  his  posterity,  but  prove  that  they  were  all  "  of  course 
to  be  saved."  / 

The  believers  of  Calvinism  must,  therefore,  to  be  con- 
sistent, choose  between  the  alternatives  of  adopting  Uni- 
versalism,  or  giving  up  the  doctrine  that  all  the  children 
of  believers  are  included  in  the  covenant  of  election  ;  and 
acknowledge  that  their  children  are  as  liable  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  that  covenant,  and  consequently  from  salva- 
tion, as  those  of  ungodly  parents.  Indeed,  it  is  truly 
remarkable  that  they  should  claim  the  benefit  of  such  an 
arrangement  for  themselves,  and  deny  it  to  poor  Isaac  and 
Rebecca ;  one  of  whose  twin  children,  they  tell  us,  was 
elected  to  eternal  salvation  before  it  was  born,  and  the 
other  passed  by,  and  left  to  live  in  sin  and  be  destroyed. 
The  argument  of  Dr.  Miller  :  "  Can  it  be,  my  friends,  that 
when  the  stem  is  in  the  Church,  the  branch  is  out  of  it  ?" 
is  considered  of  no  avail  here.  The  elect  must  therefore 
be  content  with  their  own  election,  and  not  claim  the  same 
advantage  for  all  their  children. 

The  reader  will  be  able  to  perceive  by  this  time  with 
how  much  reason  Mr.  B.  so  earnestly  asserts  that  the  doc- 
trine that  infants  may  be  lost,  has  no  essential  connection 


316  NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

with  Calvinism.  He  refers  it  to  "  the  doctrine  of  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  or  our  acting  in  him,"  as  its 
source.  This  "  sentiment,"  he  says,  "  is  as  fully  held  in 
principle  by  Arminians  as  it  ever  w^as  by  their  oppo- 
nents." He  thus  attempts  to  involve  Arminians  in  the 
•  same  difficulty  with  himself.  But  this  representation  is 
'  grossly  sophistical.  The  difference  between  Arminianism 
and  Calvinism  at  this  point  is  vast  and  essential.  There 
is  a  great  gulf  between  them  ;  for  whatever  views  Armi- 
nians may  entertain  respecting  the  condition  in  which 
Adam's  offence  placed  his  posterity,  they  maintain  that 
the  principles  and  provisions  of  the  mediatorial  econo- 
my place  all  infants  within  the  precincts  of  the  kingdom 
of  grace,  and,  therefore,  in  a  condition  of  perfect  security 
while  infants.  This  condition,  they  believe,  may  be  sub- 
sequently forfeited  by  voluntary  transgression.  They  deny 
the  Calvinistic  view  of  election  to  eternal  life,  and  hold 
that  the  election  proceeds  on  principles  very  different  from 
those  alleged  by  Calvinists.  Besides,  it  is  not  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  simply,  however  far  it  may  be  carried, 
which  endangers  the  salvation  of  infants.  For  the  most 
rigid  Calvinists  hold  that  the  elect  are  secure,  notwith- 
standing this  imputation.  It  is  the  limitation  of  the  re- 
deeming covenant  and  its  spiritual  blessings — the  doctrine 
of  the  election  of  a  definite  number  to  these  privileges, 
exclusive  of  the  rest,  which  creates  all  the  difficulty.  It  is 
not  the  fact  that  all  are  diseased,  which  renders  the  death 
of  some  inevitable,  but  the  restricted  application  of  the  re- 
medy. Nor  does  Mr.  B.  escape  the  difficulty  by  rejecting 
the  doctrine  of  imputation.  His  theory  places  all  mankind 
in  precisely  the  same  condition,  so  far  as  their  prospect  of 
salvation  is  concerned,  although  by  another  process.  He 
holds,  as  we  have  shown,  to  the  election  of  a  definite  num- 
ber to  eternal  life — that  mankind  are  distinguished  as  elect 
and  non-elect  before  they  are  bom,  and,  therefore,  while 


NEW  DININITY — CALVINISM.  317 

they  are  infants.  He  justifies  God  in  choosing  to  salva- 
tion a  "  definite  number,"  by  representing  all  as  "  justly 
condemned,"  and  argues  that  God  has  therefore  a  "  right  to 
save  whom  he  pleases."  He  illustrates  his  argument  by 
saying,  "  The  executive  of  a  country  may  select  any  num- 
ber of  criminals  whom  he  may  see  fit  to  pardon,  or  who 
may  be  forgiven,  in  consistency  with  the  supremacy  of  the 
laws,  and  the  welfare  of  the  community,  and  none  has  a 
right  to  murmur,  but  every  good  citizen  should  rejoice  that 
■  any  maybe  pardoned  with  safety." — Notes  on  Rom.  ix,  15. 
Mr.  B.  holds  to  what  may  be  called,  for  distinction's 
sake,  the  constitution  theory.  In  a  review  of  "  The  Case 
of  Mr.  Barnes,"  in  the  Christian  Spectator  for  June,  1831, 
adverting  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the 
reviewer  says,  "  In  this  scheme  it  is  of  course  implied  that 
the  evils  which  came  on  the  posterity,  came  in  the  way,  or 
in  the  mode  of  a  strictly  legal  process  ;  that  the  evils  were 
the  legal  penalty  due  to  sin,  and  as  such  were  inflicted  on 
the  ground  that  the  first  sin  of  Adam  was  in  its  ill  desert 
the  sin  of  aU  his  posterity."  He  then  goes  on  to  repu- 
diate this  doctrine,  and  give  what  he  considers  the  truth  on 
the  subject.  "  Now  this  mode  of  consequence,  the  New- 
England  divines,  for  more  than  sixty  years,  have  generally 
denied,  and  strenuously  opposed ;  and  maintained  simply, 
in  respect  to  the  mode,  that  if  Adam  sinned,  all  his  posterity, 
according  to  God's  sovereign  constitution,  would  be  subject  to 
sin  and  death.  By  the  sovereignty  of  God  here  spoken  of, 
these  divines  have  not  intended  that  God  ordained  things 
thus  without  good  and  sufficient  reasons  ;  or  that  none  of 
these  reasons  are  within  the  limits  of  human  conjecture. 
But  they  maintain  that  God  has  not  seen  proper  to  reveal 
those  reasons,  and  of  course  that  we  are  not  authorized  to 
assert  that  those  evils  came  on  Adam's  posterity  in  execu- 
tion of  a  legal  sentence,  or  in  the  way  of  retributive  justice 
for  their  ill  desert."— p.  298. 


* 


318  NEW   DIVINITr CALVIXISM. 

The  difierence,  then,  between  these  two  classes  of  theo- 
rists is  this — they  both  hold  that  the  posterity  of  Adam,  in 
consequence  of  sin,  are  "  subjected  to  sin  and  death;"  but 
one  class  assigns,  as  a  reason  for  the  infliction  of  these 
evils,  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  partook  of  the  ill  desert 
of  his  sin,  or  that  .the  guilt  of  it  was  imputed  to  them,  and 
that  the  evils  were,  therefore,  inflicted  as  a  punishment ; 
while  the  other  maintains  that  these  evils  came  on  the  pos- 
terity of  Adam  as  a  consequence  of  his  sin,  by  a  "  divine 
constitution  or  appointment,"  but  that  God  has  not  seen 
fit  to  reveal  his  reasons  for  the  adoption  of  this  constitu- 
tion. They  do  not,  therefore,  feel  authorized  to  adopt  the 
imputation  theory  as  furnishing  the  explanation.  It  seems 
'to  be  the  object  of  the  reviewer  to  prove  that  both  parties 
come  to  the  same  result,  both  as  to  the  condition  of  Adam's 
posterity,  and  the  fact  that  they  come  into  that  condition  in 
consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  He  concludes,  finally, 
that  the  dispute  is  "  solely  a  dispute  about  words." 

The  policy  of  Mr.  B.,  in  thus  referring  the  offensive 
tenet  to  a  doctrine  with  which  it  has  no  necessary  con- 
nection, was  probably  to  divert  attention  from  those  doc- 
trines to  which  it  necessarily  adheres;  and  likewise  secure 
to  himself  the  advantage  of  including  in  his  denial  both 
the  tenet  in  question  and  the  theory  in  which  he  says  it 
had  its  origin. 

Mr.  B.  may  possibly  expect  to  escape  the  doctrine  that 
non-elect  infants  are  sent  to  hell,  by  arguing,  that  as  "  in- 
fants have  no  moral  character"  they  are  not  subjects  of 
punishment  or  reward,  and  therefore  cannot  be  consigned 
to  that  place.  But  he  would  be  met  at  this  point  by  an- 
other difficulty.  The  fact  of  their  having  "  no  moral  cha- 
racter" would  as  certainly  exclude  them  from  heaven  as 
from  hell.  There  woidd  be  this  bar  to  their  reception 
there,  in  addition  to  the  circumstance  of  their  not  being 
elected  to  salvation.    And,  still  worse,  this  doctrine  would 


NEW   DIVINITY— CALVINISM.  319 

exclude  elect  infants  from  heaven  as  certainly  as  the  non- 
elect  •  for  none  can  enter  heaven  Avithout  a  moral  cha- 
racter. From  that  place  all  but  the  holy  are  excluded. 
So  that  some  other  place  or  places  than  heaven  and  hell 
must  be  found  for  both  classes,  or  they  must  be  annihi- 
lated, Avhich  Mr.  Finney  says  might  be  done  without  m- 

^''u  Ts  impossible  to  give  Calvinism  any  modification 
which  does  not  involve  a  denial  of  the  salvation  of  all  who 

■  die  in  infancy. 

Mr.  B.  very  confidently  asserts  "that  in  no  Presbyte- 
rian church  in  this  country  is  it  maintained  to  be  a  fact, 
that   infants    are   actually  damned."     In   answer  to  this, 
supposing  him  to  be  correctly  informed,  it  might  be  re- 
marked,' that  to  hold  a  doctrine,  and  to  mamtam  it,  or 
annovmce  it  publicly,  are  not  the  same  thing  at  the  present 
day      There  may  be  some  who  hold  it,  and  yet  lay  it 
aside  among  their  "sectarian  peculiarities,"  and  consider 
it    a    very    "unprofitable    part    of   popular    mstruction. 
Whether  this  be  the  case  or  not,  we  frequently  meet  with 
expressions  in  our  reading  which  not  only  involve,  as  a 
locrical  consequence,  the  insecurity  of  some  who   die  m 
infancy,  but  indicate  very  strikingly  that  the  mind  of  the 
writer  is  far  from  being  assured  that  all  who  die  m  infancy 
are  saved.    In  a  pamphlet  on  "  Native  Depravity,"  by  the 
Rev.  Gardiner  Spring,  pastor  of  the   Brick  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  city  of  New-York,  may  be  found  the  fol- 
lowing language  :—  -,         ,         , 

"  The  sentiment  has  often  been  imputed  to  the  advo- 
cates  of  native  depravity,  that  they  do  not  believe  in  the  sal- 
vation of  infants.  But  nothing  is  more  false  or  unjust  than 
this  imputation.  That  the  grace  of  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  rescues  all  infants  from  perdition,  I  do  not  deny, 
but  fondly  hope  ;  that  it  rescues  untold  millions  I  have  not 
a  doubt    Out  of  the  mouths  of  bales  and  sucklings  hast  thou 


t 


320  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

perfected  praise.  Children  are  the  heritage  of  the  Lord,  and 
the  fruit  of  the  xvomb  is  his  reioard.  But  while  we  say  this, 
we  also  say  that  God  is  not  bound  in  justice  to  save  them  ; 
and  that  whether  he  saves  a  whole  or  a  part,  he  saves 
them  as  a  matter  of  mere  mercy,  through  the  blood  of  his 
Son."— p.  52. 

Let  us  consider  this  singular  passage.  It  professes  to 
resent,  as  very  false  and  unjust,  the  imputation  that  "  the 
advocates  of  native  depravity  do  not  believe  in  the  salva- 
tion of  infants."  But  it  is  not  the  case,  that  this  is  im- 
puted to  the  advocates  of  native  depravity,  as  such,  for  the 
Methodists  hold  to  native  depravity,  and  yet  who  imputes 
■  to  them  the  belief  that  infants  are  not  saved  ?  It  is  im- 
puted to  Calvinists,  not  because  they  believe  in  native  de- 
pravity, but  because  they  believe  in  the  election  of  a  cer- 
tain number  to  eternal  life,  before  they  were  born,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  rest.  Besides,  no  one  imputes  to  them 
that  they  do  not  believe  in  the  salvation  of  a?ii/  but  that 
they  do  not  believe  in  the  salvation  of  all  infants.  Dr. 
S.,  however,  represents  the  imputation  as  being  that  they 
.do  not  believe  in  the  salvation  of  infants ;  so  that  he  mis- 
represents a  little  in  making  out  the  charge  of  misrep- 
resentation against  others.  He  can  easily  pronounce 
such  an  imputation  false  and  unjust,  without  committing 
himself  to  the  support  of  the  doctrine  that  all  who  die  in 
infancy  are  safe.  We  must,  however,  accord  to  him  the 
credit  of  having  fabricated  the  imputation  for  the  pur- 
pose of  contradicting  it  ;  and  at  the  same  time  seeming  to 
contradict  the  imputation  which  is  actually  urged  against 
them.  But  mark  how  he  treats  the  supposition  that  the 
grace  of  God  rescues  all  infants  from  perdition.  He  does 
not  deny  it,  hut  fondly  hopes  that  it  is  the  case.  This,  then, 
is  the  amount  of  his  confidence  when  the  proposition  in- 
cludes all  infants.  When  it  includes  a  part  only,  see  how 
he  brightens  up !    That  the  grace  of  God  rescues  untold 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  321 

millions  he  has  not  a  doubt.  But  how  is  it,  that  with  re- 
spect to  the  salvation  of  some  infants,  he  merely  declines  a 
denial,  and  but  fondly  hopes,  while  with  respect  to  the 
case  of  others  he  has  the  fullest  assurance  ?  Why  does  he 
not  entertain  the  same  delightful  confidence  respecting  all 
infants?  His  theory  will  solve  these  questions.  Someof  those 
infants  are  elect,  and  others  are  not.  And  lest  his  readers 
should  be  misled  by  his  fond  hopes  in  behalf  of  the  non- 
elect,  he  notifies  them  that,  whether  God  saves  the  whole 
or  a  part,  he  is  not  bound  in  justice  to  save  them  ;  which 
"implies  that  he  might  damn  them  without  injustice.  If 
Dr.  S.  does  not  believe  in  the  damnation  of  some  infants, 
he  certainly  Avalks  very  near  the  boundary  wliich  divides 
a  full  belief  in  this  doctrine  from  uncertainty  respecting  it ; 
and  we  are  quite  inclined  to  thinlc  that  we  might  impute 
to  him  that  he  does  not  confidently  believe  in  the  salvation 
of  all  infants,  without  either  falsehood  or  injustice.  But 
we  have  not  done  with  this  subject. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

CALVINISM    CONTINUED. 

Mr.  Barnes  admits,  though  with  regret,  that  a  few  have 
held  the  doctrine  that  infants  may  be  lost.  He  mentions 
Dr*.  Gill  and  Dr.  Twisse  as  of  this  number.  He  might 
with  equal  propriety  have  mentioned  Calvin  in  this  con- 
nection, after  whom  his  favourite  system  is  named.  Per- 
haps it  was  more  in  accordance  with  his  feelings  of  re- 
gret to  throw  him  among  the  "  few  others."  The  following 
passage  is  sufficient  to  declare  Calvin's  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject : — "  How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  fall  of  Adam,  inde- 
pendent of  any  remedy,  should  involve  so  many  nations, 
14* 


322  NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

with  their  infant  children,  in  eternal  death  ?  But  such  was 
the  will  of  God !  !  It  was  a  horrible  decree,  I  confess  ;  but 
no  one  can  deny  that  God  foreknew  the  future  state  of  man 
before  he  created  him  ;  and  that  he  did  foreknow  it,  because 
it  was  appointed  by  his  own  decree.'''' — Calvin's  Institutes, 
b.  iii,  chap,  xxiii,  sect.  6. 

There  is,  also,  an  avowal  of  this  horrible  doctrine  in  a 
recent  number  of  the  New-York  Observer,  no  less  explicit 
than  that  which  we  have  just  recorded. 

A  writer  in  the  "  Christian  Review"  advanced  the  fol- 
lowing argument  on  the  subject  of  war  : — 

"  Look  at  an  army  in  the  hour  of  battle.  See  attagks 
and  retreats,  battalions  annihilated,  commanders  falling, 
shouts  of  onset,  groans  of  death,  horses  trampling  the 
fallen,  limbs  flying  in  the  air,  suffocating  smoke,  thunder- 
ing artillery,  thousands  smarting  in  the  agony  of  death,  and 
none  to  administer  a  cup  of  water.  Do  the  precepts  of 
Christianity  authorize  such  a  scene  ?  Would  such  an  ex- 
hibition ever  grow  out  of  its  legitimate  effects  ?" 

To  this  the  editor  of  the  Observer  replied  : — "  A  scene 
far  more  awful  than  this  is  certainly  authorized  by  Chris- 
tianity, and  will  '  grow  out  of  its  legitimate  cfl'ects  ;'  a 
scene  which  will  call  to  suffering,  not  only  the  hardy  sol- 
dier, but  human  beings  of  every  age,  sex,  and  condition — > 
male  and  female,  the  lame,  the  sick,  the  blind,  the  deaf, 
the  aged,  and  the  infant.  Even  the  grave  shall  be  no  hid- 
ing place  from  its  demands.  The  dust  shall  be  gathered 
up,  and  the  mummy  reanimated,  and  the  power  of  feeling 
pain  shall  be  restored  to  them.  And  they  shall  be  swept 
off',  millions  on  millions,  into  the  lake  of  fire,  burning  with 
brimstone,  where  their  worm  shall  not  die,  neither  shall 
their  fire  be  quenched,  but  the  smoke  of  their  torment  shall 
ascend  up  for  ever  and  ever.  And  no  one  engaged  in 
bringing  this  to  pass  will  shrink  from  this  task,  but  ail  will 
perform  their  appointed  parts  with  alacrity,  and  shout  over 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  323 

the  sight  of  this  vast  destruction,  Hallelujah,  for  the  Lord 
God  omnipotent  reigneth  !  Neither,  while  thus  engaged, 
will  they  be  impelled  by  any  sinful  passion,  nor  will  any 
unholy  thought  or  feeling  have  place  in  their  hearts  ;  but 
they  will  be  filled  with  the  very  spirit  of  their  most  kind 
and  merciful  Master,  and  be  guided  in  every  act  by  the 
mind  which  was  also  in  him. 

"  That  Christianity  sanctions,  and  will  bring  on  such  a 
scene  as  this,  the  reviewer,  Ave  doubt  not,  most  fully  be- 
lieves. Why,  then,  should  he  think  that  Christianity,  from 
its  very  nature,  cannot  sanction  the  infliction  of  the  sufier- 
ings  which  he  describes  on  those  who  come  upon  us  for 
the  purpose  of  devastation  and  murder,  and  can  be  re- 
strained in  no  other  way  from  accomplishing  their  horrid 
ohiectr—Neic  -York  Observer,  Sept.  15,  1838. 

The  editors  of  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal 
called  attention  to  this  open  declaration  of  a  doctrine, 
which,  wc  are  told,  no  Calvinists  of  the  present  day  hold  or 
maintain.  The  editor  of  the  Observer  saw  that  he  had 
committed  himself,  and  made  an  eflbrt  to  extricate  him- 
self from  his  unhappy  position.  But  how?  He  could 
not  deny  that  he  had  affirmed  the  damnation  of  infants. 
He  had  not  only  included  in  the  destruction  "  human 
beings  of  every  age,"  but  specified  "  the  infant,"  placing 
it  in  contrast  with  "  the  aged."  Nor  could  he  deny 
that  the  "  sufl'ering "  predicated  was  damnation.  For 
he  had  said  that  the  grave  should  be  "  no  hiding  place" 
from  it,  whereas  the  grave  is  a  hiding  place  from  suffering 
to  all  who  are  saved.  He  had  said,  moreover,  that  they 
should  "  be  swept  off,  millions  on  millions,  into  the  lake 
of  fire,  burning  with  brimstone,"  &c.  He  does  not  pretend 
to  deny  that  he  had  asserted  the  damnation  of  infants.  In 
Avhat  Avay,  then,  does  he  attempt  to  work  out  his  deliver- 
ance ?  By  preposterously  trifling  with  the  meaning  of 
the  term  infant.     But  the  entire  reply  of  the  Observer  is 


324  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

worthy  of  a  permanent  record,  as  belonging  to  the  history 
of  this  controversy. 

"  Damnation  of  infants. — The  editor  of  the  Christian 
Advocate  thinks  we  have  avowed  an  uncomfortable  doc- 
trine on  this  subject ;  but  very  possibly  he  holds  the  same 
doctrine  as  much  as  we  do.  What  does  he  understand  by 
the  word  '  infant  ?'  Webster  defines  it,  '  the  first  period 
of  life,  beginning  at  birth,' — not  telling  us  when  it  ends. 
He  adds  that,  in  law,  infancy  extends  to  the  age  of  twenty- 
one.  Some  writers  make  infancy  extend  to  the  age  of  seven, 
childhood  from  seven  to  fourteen,  &c.  Theologians  scold 
or  speculate  about  '  infant  damnation,'  but  do  not  stop  to 
think  whether  they  have  any  meaning  in  particular  or  not ; 
and  generally  they  have  none,  except  that  those  on  the 
'other  side  arc  awful  heretics.  If  the  editor  of  the  Advo- 
cate will  define  the  term,  and  then  consider  the  question, 
perhaps  he  will  agree  Avith  us ;  and  perhaps  we  shall 
amend  our  phraseology." — N.  Y.  Observer,  Oct.  26,  1838. 

It  is  clearly  apparent  to  us,  whatever  impression  may 
be  made  on  the  minds  of  others,  by  the  answer,  that  he 
has  no  notion  of  giving  up  the  doctrine  asserted.  On 
the  contrary,  he  intimates,  that  if  the  editor  of  the  Ad- 
vocate will  define  the  term  "  infant,"  and  then  consider 
the  question, — if  he  Avill  only  make  his  definition  wido 
enough  to  include  the  ages  of  which  moral  accountability 
may  be  undeniably  predicated — if,  for  instance,  he  Avill 
adopt  the  definition  which  extends  infancy  to  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  "  possibly,''  and  "  perhaps,"  he  will  hold  the 
same  doctrine,  and  agree  with  the  editor  of  the  Observer. 
So  that  the  agreement  is  to  be  brought  about,  not  by  a  de- 
nial of  this  doctrine  on  the  part  of  the  Observer,  but  by  an 
admission  of  it  on  the  part  of  the  Advocate. 

If  the  editors  of  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal, 
and  those  for  whom  they  write,  held,  the  doctrine  of  "  in- 
fant damnation"  and  yet  desired  to  escape  the  odium  of  it, 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  325 

they  would  probably  be  very  thankful  for  this  definition. 
It  would  render  the  term  equivocal,  which  would  be  of 
immense  advantage.  But  they  have  no  occasion  for  it. 
They  are  satisfied  with  the  signification  attached  to  it  by 
theologians  of  all  creeds.  There  is  no  term,  the  theologi- 
cal use  of  which  is  more  uniform  and  better  understood. 

We  would  ask  what  period  of  life  Mr.  Leavitt  refers  to, 
when  he  says,  "  As  there  is  nothing  that  we  can  do  for 
these  little  ones  to  fit  them  for  heaven  ;"  or  Mr.  Duflield, 
when  he  speaks  of  transferring  them  "  forthwith,  as  soon 
as  they  come  into  the  Avorld  ;"  or  Dr.  Cox,  when  he  tells 
us  that  "  if  Scripture  had  affirmed  the  salvation  of  all  in- 
fants, or  any  class  of  them  under  a  certain  age,  the  conse- 
quences had  been  terrible  ;"  or  Dr  Spring,  when  he  calls 
them  "  babes  and  sucklings  ;"  or  Calvin,  Avhen  he  quali- 
fies the  term  children  by  the  term  infant  ?  Perhaps  these 
men  never  thought  to  define  the  term,  and  had  no  mean- 
ing in  particular,  "  except  that  those  on  the  other  side  are 
awful  heretics." 

We  would  suggest  to  the  editor  of  the  Observer,  that 
while  he  is  engaged  in  bringing  the  Methodists  over  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  infants,  he  might  apply 
the  same  means,  with  the  same  effect,  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  the  Baptists  over  to  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism. 
Let  them  only  give  the  term  "  infant"  a  definition  which 
will  include  the  ages  of  fourteen,  twenty,  &c.,  and  they 
will  have  no  right  to  "  scold"  or  "  speculate"  on  the  sub- 
ject, but  will  be  fairly  convicted  of  holding  to  infant  bap- 
tism "  as  much  as  we  do." 

This  reply  of  the  Observer  is  commended  to  the  notice 
of  the  reader,  as  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in  which  Cal- 
vinists  frequently  attempt  to  escape  from  the  grasp  of  their 
opponents.  They  avail  themselves  of  some  far-fetched, 
and  often  ridiculous,  interpretation  ;  they  claim  superior 
precision  and  learning ;  and  intimate  that  the  objections 


326  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

urged  against  them  have  their  origin  in  ignorance,  or  a 
misconception  of  tlie  subject.  Whether  the  readers  of 
the  Observer  are  satisfied  with  the  editor's  explanation,  or 
not,  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining.  We  suppose, 
however,  that  all  are  satisfied  with  it,  who  have  intelli- 
gence enough  to  appreciate  its  profound  erudition. 

These,  then,  are  the  results  of  our  inquiries  on  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration :  — 

1.  We  have  shown,  we  think,  by  clear  and  unanswer- 
able argument,  that  the  doctrine  that  all  infants  dying  in 
infancy  are  not  saved,  is  a  logical  consequence  of  several 
of  the  leading  tenets  of  Calvinism. 

2.  We  find  one  believer  in  that  system  expressing  the 
"Utmost  confidence  in  the  salvation  of  "untold  millions," 

but  there  are  others  pf  whom  he  "  fondly  hopes"  that  they 
are  saved — he  does  not  deny  that  this  is  the  case.  And 
he  cannot  go  beyond  this  in  a  passage  written  expressly 
for  the  purpose  of  vindicating  himself  from  the  imputation 
of  not  believing  in  the  salvation  of  all  infants. 

3.  Another  declares,  that  we  are  left  in  entire  ignorance 
as  to  the  fate  of  deceased  infants — that  this  is  one  of  the 
secret  things  which  belong  to  God.  He  declines,  for  this 
reason,  forming  any  opinion  on  the  subject,  and  intimates 
a  reluctance  to  discuss  it,  affirming  that  the  cause  of  piety 
can  gain  nothing  from  its  discussion. 

4.  Another  not  only  asserts  that  Ave  are  wholly  unin- 
formed respecting  the  future  condition  of  infants,  but 
brings  forward  a  series  of  grave  arguments  against  the 
supposition  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved. 

5.  Another  not  only  considers  that  we  are  in  absolute 
ignorance  on  this  point,  and  argues  against  the  doctrine 
that  all  infants  are  saved,  but  also  finds  strong  presump- 
tions for  the  damnation  of  some  infants. 

6.  While  another  positively  affirms  the  doctrine  that 
infants  are  swept  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone. 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  327 

And  all  these  writers  are  now  living,  and  are  ministers 
of  the  gospel,  or  editors  of  leading  periodicals.  Three 
of  them,  Rev.  Messrs.  Leavitt,  Duffield,  and  Cox,  are 
known  as  leading  New  School  Calvinists.  Of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Spring,  a  writer  in  the  Presbyterian,  (an  Old  School 
paper,)  says :  "  And  does  not  Dr.  Spring,  of  New-York, 
one  of  the  wisest  men  of  the  age,  and  once  the  glory  of 
the  New  School,  now  stand  amazed  at  the  daring  strides 
of  error  ?  And  has  he  not,  on  this  account,  retired,  and 
cast  in  his  lot  with  the  Old  School  ?  And  he  is  still  a 
Hopkinsian."  The  editor  of  the  New-York  Observer 
professes  to  be  neutral,  but  his  sympathies  are  obviously 
with  the  New  School  party,  and  the  Old  School  papers  so 
understand  him. 

We  therefore  conclude  that  we  are  fully  justified  in 
saying,- that  the  New  School  party  carry  their  Calvinism 
so  far  as  to  involve  in  doubt  the  doctrine  that  all  who  die 
in  infancy  are  saved. 

Indeed  the  single  position  that  God  has  made  no  reve- 
lation on  the  subject  of  the  future  destiny  of  deceased  in- 
fants is  very  suspicious,  especially  in  view  of  the  Saviour's 
declaration,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God," 
Luke  xviii,  16,  a  declaration  quoted  by  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  to  prove  the  salvation  of  elect  infants. 
If  this  position  be  true,  no  mother  has  a  right  to  conclude 
that  her  departed  infant  has  gone  to  heaven.  Nor  can  the 
minister  who  believes  it  afford  her  this  consolation.  He 
may  say  he  does  not  believe  that  it  is  damned,  but  then  he 
means  only  that  he  is  in  absolute  ignorance  on  the  subject, 
and  therefore  has  no  right  to  believe  either  way.  We 
would  also  suggest  whether  this  position  does  not.  entirely 
destroy  the  basis  of  infant  baptism.  How  can  ministers 
baptize  infants,  when  they  are  in  entire  ignorance  respect- 
ing their  relations  to  the  kingdom  of  God  ?     But  they  con- 


328  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

tradict  themselves  grossly.  For  in  the  very  argument  in 
which  Mr.  Duffield  undertakes  to  prove  our  entire  igno- 
rance of  the  case  of  infants,  he  tells  us  that  the  children 
of  believers  are  included  in  the  covenant  of  grace. 

We  are  forcibly  reminded  by  this  doctrine  of  the  an- 
swer of  the  chief  priests  and  elders  to  our  Saviour,  when 
he  asked  them  whether  the  baptism  of  John  was  "  from 
heaven,  or  of  men."  "  They  reasoned  with  themselves,  say- 
ing. If  we  shall  say  from  heaven,  he  will  say,  Why  then  be- 
lieved ye  him  not  ?  But  if  we  say  of  men,  all  the  people 
will  stone  us,  for  they  be  persuaded  that  John  was  a  pro- 
phet. And  they  answered,  that  they  could  not  tell  whence 
it  was."  The  advocates  of  the  Calvinistic  system  per- 
ceive that  if  they  admit  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy 
are  safe,  they  destroy  the  foundation  of  their  system.  If 
they  admit  the  damnation  of  some  infants,  they  arouse 
against  it  one  of  the  most  powerful  feelings  of  humanity. 
They  therefore  beg  to  be  excused  from  forming  any 
opinion  on  the  subject.  They  have  no  information,  and 
so  had  better  have  no  theory.  They  answer,  "  We  can- 
not tell." 

The  arguments  used  against  the  doctrine  of  Methodism, 
respecting  the  salvation  of  infants,  are  too  futile  for  refuta- 
tion ;  but  they  serve  to  conclusively  show  the  sentiments 
of  those  who  employ  them.  Who  could  believe  a  doc- 
trine which  he  supposes  chargeable  with  such  destructive 
tendencies  ?  "  If  this  doctrine  were  generally  and  reve- 
rently received,  it  would  lead  to  terrible  consequences — 
even  to  infanticide.  Parents  would  probably  put  their 
children  to  death,  to  secure  their  salvation."  Hear  this, 
ye  Arminians,  and  wonder  how  it  is  that  you  have  not 
murdered  all  your  children,  and  been  hung  and  damned, 
long  since  ! ! 


NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM.  329 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

CALVINISM  CONTINUED. 

The  evidence  adduced  to  prove  that  the  teachers  of 
New  Divinity  are  Calvinists,  must  be  more  than  sufficient 
to  convince  our  readers  that  this  is  the  case.  We  now 
propose  to  iUustrate  the  manner  in  which  they  endeavour 
to  reconcile  the  restrictive  doctrines  of  Calvinism  with  the 
offers  of  a  free  salvation,  &c.  This  part  of  the  argument 
has  been,  to  some  extent,  anticipated,  but  its  importance 
claims  for  it  a  more  particular  and  extensive  conside- 
ration. 

Foremost  among  the  devices  for  this  purpose  stands  the 
distinction  of  ability  into  natural  and  moral.  The  manner 
in  which  it  is  applied,  has  been  already  several  times 
pointed  out.  It  is  affirmed,  that  all  have  a  natural  ability 
to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  but  that  all  have  not  the 
moral  ability.  The  natural  ability  is  relied  on  as  justify- 
ing the  offer  of  salvation  to  all,  the  universal  obligation  to 
repentance  and  faith,  and  the  condemnation  and  eternal 
punishment  of  all  who  do  not  repent,  believe,  and  obey  the 
gospel ;  while  the  moral  inability  secures  the  doctrines  of 
Calvinism.  The  grace  of  God  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
overcome  this  inability,  and  that  grace  is  imparted  to  none 
but  the  elect. 

A  very  striking  exemplification  of  the  position  which 
we  have  assumed,  respecting  the  use  of  this  distinction,  is 
furnished  by  Ryland's  edition  of  the  Life  of  the  Rev.  An- 
drew Fuller,  an  eminent  minister  of  the  Baptist  persuasion 
in  England,  who  was  one  of  the  warmest  and  ablest  advo- 
cates of  modern  Calvinism.  He  was  educated  in  that 
denomination,  and  very  early  imbibed  the  Calvinistic  faith. 
Very  soon  after  his  conversion,  he  became  engaged  in 


330  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

doctrinal  disputes.  The  question  of  man's  ability  to  obey 
God  seems  tahave  created  his  first  difficulties,  and  started 
his  investigations.  A  short  time  after  his  baptism,  and 
uniting  in  church  fellowship  with  the  Baptists,  an  affair 
occurred  which  brought  it  fairly  before  him^  The  cir- 
cumstances are  related  by  himself.  "  One  of  the  members 
having  been  guilty  of  drinking  to  excess,  I  was  the  first 
who  knew  of  it.  I  immediately  went  and  talked  to  him, 
as  well  as  I  could,  on  the  evil  of  his  conduct.  His  an- 
swer was,  he  could  not  keep  himself,  and  that  though  I 
bore  so  hard  on  him,  I  was  not  my  own  keeper.  At  this 
I  felt  indignant,  considering  it  as  a  bad  excuse.  I  there- 
fore told  him  that  he  could  keep  himself  from  such  sins  as 
these,  and  that  his  way  of  talking  was  merely  to  excuse 
what  was  inexcusable.  I  knew  not  what  else  to  say  at 
that  time,  yet  the  idea  of  arrogating  to  be  my  own  keeper 
seemed  too  much.  He  however  was  offended,  and  told 
me  that  I  was  young,  and  did  not  know  the  deceitfulness 
of  my  own  heart.  Well,  I  went  and  told  my  pastor,  who 
liighly  commended  me,  and  said  we  could  keep  ourselves 
from  open  sins.  We  had  no  power,  he  observed,  to  do 
things  spiritually  good ;  but  as  to  outward  acts,  we  had 
power  both  to  obey  the  will  of  God  and  to  disobey  it. 

'.'  The  business  soon  came  before  the  church,  and  the 
offender  was  unanimously  excluded ;  the  excuse  which 
he  had  made,  too,  was  considered  by  all,  I  believe,  as  an 
aggravation  of  his  offence.  But,  this  affair  being  disposed 
of,  the  abstract  question,  of  the  power  of  sinful  men  to  do 
the  will  of  God,  and  to  keep  themselves  from  sin,  was  taken 
up  by  some  of  the  leading  members  of  the  Church.  They 
readily  excused  me,  as  being  a  babe  in  religion ;  but 
thought  the  pastor  ought  to  have  known  better,  and  to 
have  been  able  to  ansAver  the  offender,  Avithout  betraying 
the  truth.  They  alleged,  that  the  greatest  and  best  of 
characters,  as  recorded  in  Scripture,  never  arrogated  to 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  331 

themselves  the  power  of  keeping  themselves  from  evil,  but 
constantly  prayed  for  keeping  grace  ;  that,  were  it  not  for 
the  restraining  goodness  and  constraining  grace  of  God, 
earth  would  be  a  hell,  and  the  best  of  men  incarnate 
devils.  In  short,  that,  though  we  are  altogether  blame- 
worthy for  our  evil  propensities,  yet  if  they  were  restrained 
or  conquered,  it  was  altogether  to  be  ascribed  to  God,  and 
not  to  us. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  the  pastor  distinguished  between 
internal  and  external  power.  He  allowed  that  men  had  no 
power  of  themselves  to  perform  any  thing  spiritually  good ; 
but  contended  that  they  could  yield  external  obedience, 
and  keep  themselves  from  open  acts  of  sin.  In  proof  of 
this,  he  alleged  a  great  number  of  Scripture  exhortations ; 
asking,  if  we  had  no  power  to  comply  with  them,  why 
they  were  given  us.  The  opponents  did  not  deny  our 
being  exhorted  to  do  good,  and  to  avoid  evil,  nor  that  it 
was  our  duty  to  do  both,  and  our  sin  to  act  otherwise ; 
but  they  denied  that  this  implied  our  being  sufficient  of 
ourselves  to  do  any  tiling,  even  to  think  a  good  thought. 

"  In  these  disputes,  I  continued  for  some  time  on  the 
side  of  my  pastor ;  but,  after  a  few  months,  I  felt  difficul- 
ties on  the  subject,  which  I  coidd  not  answer,  and  which 
rendered  me  unhappy.  I  perceived  that  some  kind  of 
power  was  necessary  to  render  us  accoimtable  beings.  If 
we  were  like  stocks  or  stones,  or  literally  dead,  like  men 
in  a  burying  ground,  we  could  with  no  more  propriety 
than  they  be  commanded  to  perform  any  duty.  If  we 
were  mere  machines,  there  could  be  no  sin  chargeable 
upon  us.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Scriptures  expressly 
affirm  that  '  the  way  of  man  is  not  in  himself,'  and  repre- 
sent the  godly  as  crying  to  Heaven  for  preservation  from 
evil,  ascribing  all  the  good  that  was  in  them  to  Him  who 
worketh  in  us  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  own  good  pleasure. 
I  prayed  much,  and  laboured  hard  to  solve  this  difficulty." 


332  NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

This  controversy  eventuated  in  a  separation  between 
the  pastor  and  the  church.  The  doctrine  of  ability  con- 
tinued to  be  the  absorbing  topic  with  Mr.  Fuller ;  and  a 
short  time  afterward  he  met  with  a  distinction  in  reading 
a  work  of  Dr.  Gill,  between  the  power  of  the  hand  and 
the  power  of  the  heart.  He  eagerly  seized  upon  it,  as 
furnishing  the  all-important  desideratum.  He  says,  "This, 
(thought  I,)  is  the  clew  to  our  dispute.  Every  man  has 
it  in  the  power  of  his  hand  to  do  good,  and  abstain  from 
evil ;  and  this  is  it  which  makes  us  accountable  beings. 
We  can  do,  or  forbear  to  do  this  or  that,  if  we  have  a 
mind ;  but  many  have  not  a  mind,  and  none  would  have 
such  a  mind,  but  for  the  restraining  goodness  or  constrain- 
.  ing  grace  of  God.  We  have  it  in  the  power  of  our  hands 
to  do  good,  but  we  are  disposed  to  do  evil ;  and  so  to  do 
good  is  not  naturally  in  the  power  of  our  hearts." 

About  the  time  of  his  conversion  and  entrance  into  the 
ministry,  the  Calvinistic  churches  in  England  were  agi- 
tated by  the  question,  "  Whether  it  be  the  duty  of  aU  men, 
to  whom  the  gospel  is  published,  to  repent  and  believe  the 
gospel."  This  was  called  the  "  modern  question." 
That  such  a  question  should  ever  divide  ministers  of  the 
gospel  seems  strange  enough.  Writers  engaged  warmly 
on  both  sides. 

Those  Avho  wrote  on  the  negative  side  seem  to  have 
argued  from  the  principles  of  Calvinism,  which  amply  and 
firmly  sustained  them  ;  showing  that  inasmuch  as  the  im- 
regenerate  or  reprobate  have  no  power  to  repent  or  believe 
the  gospel,  and  as  God  had  not  intended  or  provided  for 
their  salvation,  but  predestinated  their  destruction,  it  can- 
not be  their  duty  to  repent  and  believe  ;  that  they  have  no 
warrant  to  believe  in  Christ,  as  he  did  not  redeem  them ; 
that  for  God  to  require  them  to  believe  in  Christ  as  their 
Saviour,  would  be  to  require  them  to  believe  a  lie  in  order 
to  salvation ;  and  then,  as  there  is  no  salvation  for  them, 


NEW  DIVINITV CAIA^INISM.  333 

to  damn  them  at  all  events.  Those  who  espoused  the 
affirmative  argued  from  the  word  of  God,  which  was  un- 
doubtedly on  their  side.  But  the  task  devolved  on  them 
of  reconciling  the  obligation  of  all  men  to  repent  and  be- 
lieve with  the  partial  tenets  of  their  creed.  Here  they 
were  compelled  to  labour  with  unavailing  toil.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  course,  the  manner  of  addressing  sinners  from  the 
pulpit,  observed  by  these  preachers,  was  greatly  influenced 
by  the  views  which  they  respectively  entertained  on  this 
question. 

Those  who  carried  out  the  principles  of  Calvinism  to 
their  legitimate  consequences  were  "  restrained  from  imi- 
tating our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  in  calling  sinners  to  re- 
pent and  beheve  the  gospel."  The  distinctions  which 
they  made  between  internal  and  external  pov/er — be- 
tween the  power  of  the  hand  and  the  power  of  the  heart 
— enabled  them  to  address,  to  some  extent,  the  consciences 
of  sinners — to  admonish  them  to  abstain  from  open  and 
flagrant  wickedness,  and  attend  on  the  means  of  grace, 
and  act  like  orderly  citizens  ;  but  they  could  say  nothing 
to  them  from  the  pulpit  in  the  way  of  warning  them  to  flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come,  or  inviting  them  to  apply  to  Christ 
for  salvation. 

It  is  obvious  that  these  distinctions,  instead  of  relieving 
Calvinism  of  its  difliculties,  serve  only  to  render  them 
more  fearfully  visible.  While  they  separate  obedience  to 
that  part  of  the  law  of  God  which  relates  to  outward  acts, 
by  wliich  alone  human  society  is  directly  benefited  or  in- 
jured, from  inward,  spiritual  principle,  they  lead  to  the 
conclusion,  that  the  utmost  efforts  of  which  the  non-elect 
are  capable  must  be  utterly  unavailing  to  their  salvation. 
These  outcasts  may  so  far  conform  to  the  divine  law  as 
to  relieve  the  elect  from  the  necessity  of  living  in  the 
midst  of  an  openly  vicious  and  persecuting  population, 
help  them  to  build  churches,  support  ministers,  acquire 


334  NKW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

property,  and  may  become  in  all  respects  the  more  humble 
servants  of  the  elect ;  but  they  cannot  escape  the  damna- 
tion of  hell. 

Mr.  Fuller  was  at  this  time  a  decided  and  consistent 
Calvinist ;  and  although  his  mind  had  become  somewhat 
agitated  and  unsettled  by  the  disputes  in  which  he  had 
been  involved,  he  did  not,  durst  not,  for  some  years,  address 
an  invitation  to  the  imconverted  to  come  to  Jesus.  He 
had  very  little  to  say  to  the  unconverted  ;  at  least,  nothing 
in  a  way  of  exhortation  to  things  spiritually  good  or  cer- 
tainly connected  with  salvation.  He  read  some  authors, 
who,  while  they  maintained  the  doctrines  of  election  and 
predestination,  nevertheless  held  with  the  free  offer  of 
salvation  to  sinners  without  distinction,  and  dealt  in  free 
invitations  to  sinners  to  come  to  Christ  and  be  saved — 
Bunyan,  for  instance,  and  all  the  old  writers  of  the  six- 
teenth and  seventeenth  centuries,  that  came  in  his  way. 
But  the  consistency  of  these  invitations  with  personal  elec- 
tion he  could  not  understand.  These  were  things  which 
he  could  not  then  reconcile.  He  supposed  that  Bunyan, 
though  a  great  and  good  man,  was  not  so  clear  in  his 
views  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  as  the  writers  who 
succeeded  him.  He  perceived  that  the  Scriptures  abound- 
ed with  exhortations  and  invitations  to  sinners  ;  but  he 
supposed  there  must  be  two  kinds  of  holiness — one  of 
which  was  possessed  by  man  in  innocence,  and  was  bind- 
ing on  all  his  posterity — the  other  derived  from  Christ, 
and  binding  only  on  his  people.  The  exhortations  to  re- 
pentance and  faith,  addressed  in  the  Ncav  Testament  to 
the  unconverted,  he  supposed  to  refer  only  to  such  exter- 
nal repentance  and  faith  as  were  within  their  power,  and 
might  be  complied  with  without  the  grace  of  God. 

Notwithstanding  the  plausibility  with  which  these  dis- 
tinctions on  the  subject  of  power  first  presented  themselves 
to  the  mind  of  Mr.  Fuller,  he  did  not  long  continue  satis- 


-\EW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  335 

fied  with  them ;  and  no  wonder.  They  show  to  what 
desperate  subterfuges  Calvinism  compels  its  votaries. 
He  began  to  doubt  whether  he  had  the  truth  respecting 
this  subject : — "  I  perceived,"  says  he,  "  that  the  will  of 
God  was  not  contined  to  mere  outward  actions,  but  ex- 
N tended  to  the  inmost  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart. 
The  distinction  of  duties  therefore  into  internal  and  exter- 
nal, and  making  the  latter  only  concern  the  unregenerate, 
wore  a  suspicious  appearance.  But  as  I  perceived  this 
reasoning  would  aflect  the  whole  tenor  of  my  preaching, 
I  moved  on  with  slow  and  trembling  steps ;  and,  havin*!- 
to  feel  my  way  out  of  a  lab%Tinth.  I  was  a  Ion?  time  ere  I 
was  satistied." 

Shortly  after  tliis  period  he  visited  London,  where  he 
met  with  a  pamplilet  which  reWved  all  his  doubts  as  to 
the  correctness  of  liis  theorv',  both  with  respect  to  the 
duty  of  siimers,  and  of  ministers  in  addressing  them. 
This  pamphlet  was  written  by  Dr.  Abraham  Tavlor,  of 
London,  on  the  atlinnative  side  of  the  modem  question. 
"  I  had  never  (says  :Mr.  Fidler)  seen  any  thing  relative  to 
this  controversy  before,  although  the  subject,  as  I  have 
stated,  had  occupied  my  thoughts.  I  was  but  little  im- 
pressed by  his  reasonings  till  he  came  to  the  addresses 
of  John  the  Baptist,  Christ,  and  the  apostles,  which  he 
proved  to  be  addressed  to  the  ungodly,  and  to  mean  spi- 
ritual repentance  and  faith,  inasmuch  as  thev  were  con- 
nected with  the  remission  of  sins.  This  set  me  fast.  I 
read  and  examined  the  Scripture  passages  ;  and  the  more 
I  read  and  tliought,  the  more  I  doubted  the  justice  of  my 
former  views."  He  also,  about  the  same  time,  met  with 
a  sermon  which  increased  liis  ditlicultics,  and  he  became 
very  unhappy.  He  doubted  the  correctness  of  his  ^-iews 
and  his  preaching,  and  yet  was  not  fully  convinced  of 
their  inaccuracy.  What  he  wanted  was  cvideutlv  a  more 
satisfactory  method  of  reconciling  the  obligation  of  all 


336  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

men  to  repent  and  believe  the  gospel,  and  the  free  offer 
of  salvation  to  sinners,  with  the  foreorJination  of  all  events, 
and  the  personal  unconditional  election  of  a  part  of  man- 
kind to  eternal  life,  to  the  absolute  exclusion  of  all  the 
rest. 

Very  opportunely,  at  this  most  critical  juncture,  our  be- 
vi'ildered  theologian  met  with  the  distinction  of  ability  into 
natural  and  moral,  and  the  theory  of  natural  ability  and 
moral  inability.  This  relieved  him.  For,  by  attributing 
to  the  sinner  a  natural  or  physical  ability,  he  felt  himself 
justified  in  calling  on  sinners  to  repent  and  believe.  While 
by  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  inability,  which  nothing  but  the 
special  and  distinguishing  grace  of  God  can  remove,  he 
secured  his  darling  Calvinism.  This  grace  is  given  to 
none  but  the  elect,  so  that,  notwithstanding  the  natural 
ability,  none  but  the  elect  can  be  saved.  He  particularly 
mentions  that  his  change  of  views  on  duty  and  ability 
never  abated  his  zeal  for  Calvinism,  but,  in  some  respects, 
increased  it.  He  declares  that  he  never  had  any  predi- 
lections for  Arminianism  ;  which  appeared  to  him  to  as- 
cribe the  diff'erence  between  one  sinner  and  another,  not 
to  the  effectual  grace  of  God,  but  to  the  good  improvement 
made  of  grace  given  us  in  common  with  others. 

The  source  to  which  Mr.  F.  was  indebted  for  this  won- 
derful and  invaluable  discovery — this  solution  of  all  his 
difficulties — was  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards'  Treatise  on  the 
Will ;  to  whom,  it  would  seem,  belongs  the  honour  of 
elaborating  the  subject  of  power  to  these  sublimated  forms 
of  exhibition.  This  work  appears  to  have  been  working, 
at  that  time,  most  wonderful  effects  on  the  minds  of  trans- 
atlantic theologians.  It  was  recommended  to  Mr.  Fuller 
by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hall  of  Arnsby. 

The  case  of  Mr.  Fuller  has  been  introduced,  at  length, 
because  it  clearly  illustrates  and  confirms  the  position  de- 
signed to  be   established ;  and  presents  the   interesting 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISJI.  337 

Spectacle  of  a  great  and  honest  mind  struggling  with  the 
difficulties  of  that  perplexing  creed  to  which  he  was  de- 
voted. And,  no  doubt,  we  have  presented  in  this  example 
the  process  of  hundreds  of  minds,  in  advancing  from  the 
same  starting  point  to  the  same  conclusions.  The  Rev. 
Mr.  Ryland,  the  author  of  these  memoirs,  states  his  own 
experience  on  this  subject  in  a  note  : — "  The  sixty-second 
of  Samuel  Rutherford's  letters  was  one  of  the  first  things 
that  put  me  to  a  stand  on  this  subject.  Closely  studying 
Edwards  on  the  Will,  and  entering  into  the  distinction  be- 
tween natural  and  moral  ability,  removed  the  difficulties 
which  had  once  embarrassed  my  mind.  In  1776,  I  bor- 
rowed of  Mr.  Newton,  of  Olney,  two  sermons  on  this  sub- 
ject by  Mr.  Smalley,  which  Brother  Sutcliffe  afterward 
reprinted  from  the  copy  which  I  transcribed.  I  well  re- 
member lending  them  to  Mr.  Hall,  of  Arnsby,  to  whom  I 
remarked,  that  I  was  ready  to  suspect  that  this  distinction, 
Avell  considered,  would  lead  us  to  see  that  the  affirmative 
side  of  the  modern  question  was  fulli/  consistent  with  the 
strictest  Calvinism.  He  replied,  'I  do  not  think  that.' 
But,  I  believe,  the  next  time  I  met  him  was  at  a  ministers' 
meeting  at  Kettering,  when  I  found  he  was  fully  satisfied 
with  the  truth  of  my  observations.  And  in  another  note 
he  says,  '  I  question  much  if  any  man  can  steer  clear  of 
false  Calvinism,  on  the  one  hand,  and  real  Arminianism 
on  the  other,  without  entering  into  the  distinction  between 
natural  and  moral  ability,  as  it  is  called." 

The  sermons  by  Mr.  Smalley,  just  referred  to,  fell  into 
our  hands  several  years  since.  The  distinction  is  thus 
stated  and  applied  by  that  author:  "These  two  kinds 
of  inability,  as  I  hinted,  have  commonly  been  distin- 
guished by  calling  one  a  natural  ability,  the  other  a 
moral  ability;  which  distinction  may  be  briefly  stated 
thus— moral  inability  consists  only  in  the  want  of  a 
heart,  or  disposition,  or  will  to   do    a   thing.      Natural 

15 


338  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

inability,  on  the  other  hand,  consists  in,  or  arises  from, 
want  of  understanding,  bodily  strength,  opportunity,  or 
whatever  may  prevent  our  doing  a  thing  when  we  are 
willing,  and  strongly  enough  disposed  and  inclined  to  do 
it.  Or  in  fewer  words,  thus — whatever  a  man  could  not 
do  if  he  would,  he  is  under  a  natural  inability  of  doing. 
But  when  all  the  reason  why  one  cannot  do  a  thing  is, 
because  he  does  not  choose  to  do  it,  the  inability  is  only 
of  a  moral  nature. 

"  The  point  of  doctrine  which  I  shall  insist  on  from 
these  words  is  this :  That  none  are  able  to  comply  with 
the  gospel  but  those  who  are  the  subjects  of  the  special 
and  effectual  grace  of  God,  or  those  who  are  made  willing 
and  do  actually  comply  Avith  it." 

The  title  of  these  sermons  is,  "  The  Inability  of  the  Sin- 
ner to  comply  with  the  Gospel,  and  his  Inexcusable  Guilt 
in  not  complying  with  it,  and  these  two  reconciled." 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

CALVINISM     CONTINUED. 

The  distinction  which  is  the  subject  of  the  preceding 
chapter  is  resorted  to  by  Mr.  Barnes,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. In  a  note  to  his  sermon  on  "  The  Way  of  Salva- 
tion," he  remarks :  "  If  God  requires  more  of  men  than 
in  any  sense  they  are  able  to  perform,  then,  in  the  practi- 
cal judgment  of  all  men,  according  to  the  reason  he  has 
given  them,  he  is  unjust.  That  there  is  something  which 
makes  certain  the  result  that  a  sinner  will  not,  of  himself, 
believe,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament,  John 
V,  40  ;  vi,  44.  If  this  be  such  as  in  all  cases  to  put  it  be- 
yond his  power  to  do  it,  then  it  frees  him  from  obligation  ; 
if  not,  he  may  be  urged  still  to  do  it.     The  distinction, 


NEW  DIVINITY— CALVINISM.  339 

then,  between  natural  and  moral  ability  referred  to  here, 
is  not  one  of  mere  speculation."  This  passage  plainly  in- 
dicates the  use  of  this  distinction.  Man  must  be  sup- 
posed to  have  ability  "  in  some  sense,"  or  he  is  "  free 
from  obligation,"  and  yet  there  is  something  which 
"  makes  certain  the  result  that  the  sinner  will  not  of  him- 
self believe."  This  want  of  will  on  the  part  of  the  sinner, 
which  something  makes  certain,  is  the  moral  inability. 

Mr.  B.  frequently  asserts  the  necessity  of  the  special 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  order  to  conversion.  In  the 
sermon  just  referred  to,  he  observes :  "  If  the  last  point 
which  I  suggested  be  true,  that  all  are  disposed  to  reject 
the  scheme,  then  it  would  seem  to  follow,  that  if  any  are 
saved,  it, will  be  by  the  special  agency  of  God." — De- 
fence^ p.  27. 

His  theory  also  restricts  this  indispensable  agency  to  a 
portion  of  mankind.  "If  then,"  he  says,  "God  renews  the 
heart  by  his  Holy  Spirit — if  he  begins  and  carries  on  the 
work  in  all  that  shall  be  saved,  and  holds  the  power  of 
doing  this  over  all  men,  and  does  not  thus  incline  all  to 
come  to  him,  and  it  be  asked,  as  well  it  may  be,  why  he 
does  not  renew  and  save  all — we  have  only  to  say,  that 
all  do  not  choose  to  be  saved,  and  vnll  not  come  to  him." 
This  is  a  very  convenient  solution  of  the  question,  why 
God  does  not  exert  the  influence  on  all  men  which  he 
does  on  some.  But  Mr.  B.  knew  that  according  to  his 
scheme  there  is  a  cause  beyond  the  choice  of  the  sinner. 
He  holds  that  none  will  "  come  to  Christ"  and  "  choose 
to  be  saved,  unless  God  makes  them  willing — that  the  re- 
sult is  invariably  the  expression  of  the  divine  decree."  Is 
it  not  remarkable,  then,  that  he  should  assign  as  a  reason 
why  God  does  not  "  incline  all  to  come  to  him,"  that  all 
are  not  previously  inclined?  The  reason  assigned  for 
this  special  agency,  in  any  case,  is,  that  without  it  notv& 
will  "choose'^  and   ^*will"  and  be  inclined  to  come  to 


340  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

Christ ;  so  that  the  reason  why  he  inclines  some,  is  given 
as  the  reason  why  he  does  not  incline  others. 

But  he  comes  to  the  point  at  last.  "If  it  be  asked 
why  the  great  Sovereign  of  the  world  does  not  constrain 
them  to  come,  and  bring  all  to  heaven,  I  answer,  my 
power  of  reason  fails  ;  my  understanding  faints,  and  is 
weary ;  and  I  ask  also,  why  he  did  not  keep  by  his  power 
men  and  devils  from  falling,  and  save  the  universe  from 
sin  and  sorrow  altogether  ?  Secret  things  belong  to  God, 
and  I  can  only  say,  as  God's  only-begotten  Son  said  long 
since,  '  Even  so.  Father,  for  so  it  seemeth  good  in  thy 
sight.' " 

We  are  now  clearly  informed  that  the  special  influence 
absolutely  necessary  to  conversion  and  salvation,  is 
vouchsafed  to  some  and  withheld  from  others  ;  and  Mr. 
B.  acknowledges  his  inability  to  account  for  the  discrimi- 
nation otherwise  than  by  resolving  it  into  the  good  plea- 
sure of  God.  Here  is  the  doctrine  of  the  unconditional 
election  of  some  to  eternal  life. 

He  advances  the  same  sentiment  in  the  following  note, 
on  the  words  "  WAom  he  will  he  hardeneth"  Rom.  ix.  "  The 
word  hardeneth  means  only  to  harden  in  the  manner  spe- 
cified in  the  case  of  Pharaoh.  It  does  not  mean  to  exert 
a  positive  influence,  but  to  leave  a  sinner  to  his  chosen 
course,  and  to  place  him  in  circumstances  where  the 
character  will  be  more  and  more  developed. — See  note 
John  xii,  40.  It  implies,  however,  an  act  of  sovereignty 
on  the  part  of  God  in  thus  leaving  him  to  his  chosen 
course,  and  in  not  putting  forth  that  influence  by  which 
he  could  be  saved  from  death.  Why  this  is  the  apostle 
does  not  state.  We  should,  however,  not  dispute  a  fact 
every  where  prevalent,  and  should  have  sufficient  confi- 
dence in  God  to  believe  that  it  is  in  accordance  with  infi- 
nite wisdom  and  rectitude." 

We  are  here  expressly  informed  that  it  is  "  a  fact  every 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  341 

where  prevalent"  that  God,  as  an  "  act  of  sovereignty,'* 
leaves  some  sinners  to  their  "  chosen  course,"  and  declines 
"  putting  forth  the  influence  by  which  they  could  be  saved 
from  death ;"  and  it  as  clearly  implies  that  there  are  others 
whom  he  does  not  leave  to  their  "  chosen  course,"  but 
"  puts  forth,  in  their  case,  the  necessary  influence."  It  is 
also  intimated  that  the  reason  for  this  discrimination 
is  unknown. 

It  is  also  a  part  of  Mr.  B.'s  system,  that  God  saves  men 
in  every  instance  in  which  he  designs  to  save  them,  notwith- 
standing their  unwillingness.  In  his  note  on  "  Not  of  him 
that  willeth"  he  remarks,  '* This  does  not  mean  that  he 
that  becomes  a  Christian  and  is  saved  does  not  choose 
eternal  life,  or  is  not  made  willing ;  or  that  he  is  com- 
pelled to  enter  heaven  against  his  choice.  It  is  true  that 
men  by  nature  have  no  desire  of  holiness,  and  do  not 
choose  eternal  life.  But  the  efiect  of  the  influence  of 
God's  Spirit  on  the  heart  is  to  make  it '  willing  in  the  day 
of  his  power.' " 

The  doctrine  of  this  comment  is,  not  only,  that  without 
the  influences  of  God's  Spirit  on  the  heart,  "  men  have 
no  desire  of  holiness  and  do  not  choose  eternal  life,"  but 
also,  that  the  effect  of  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  is  to 
make  willing  those  who  are  unwilling.  True,  he  cautions 
against  the  supposition  that  men  become  Christians  with- 
out choosing,  or  that  they  are  compelled  against  their 
choice.  But  if  they  choose,  it  is,  according  to  his  theory, 
because  they  are  made  to  choose — because  they  are 
"  made  willing."  If  they  are  not  "  compelled  against 
their  choice"  it  is  because  their  choice  itself  is  compelled 
in  the  prescribed  direction.  He  tells  us  in  his  sermon 
that  "  the  Spirit  of  God  acts  on  the  will." — p.  28. 

As  this  distinction  between  being  made  wUling,  and 
being  compelled  against  the  will,  is  deemed  of  great  im- 
portance in   Calvinistic  theology,  and  as   some  of  our 


342  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

readers  may  not  be  familiar  with  it,  we  will  present  an 
illustration  by  a  Calvinistic  writer,  the  Rev.  Pharcellus 
Church,  of  the  Baptist  persuasion.  It  occurs  in  his 
"  Prize  Essay  on  Religious  Dissensions." 

"  If  a  man  slides  from  the  edge  of  a  precipice,  and 
nothing  intercepts  his  course,  there  is  a  natural  necessity 
that  he  should  fall  to  the  bottom.  However  much  he 
might  choose  to  stop,  it  would  be  in  vain.  Gravity  is  a 
force  over  which  the  will  could  have  no  control  imder 
such  circumstances. 

"  But  suppose  the  man  were  to  rise  at  midnight,  enter 
the  dwelling  of  a  neighbour,  massacre  him,  and  then  rob 
and  burn  his  house ;  and  suppose  the  motive  influencing 
him  to  so  foul  a  deed  depended  upon  an  assemblage  of 
incidents  and  circumstances  which  had  been  operating 
from  his  childhood,  and  over  which  he  had  no  more  con- 
trol than  over  the  force  of  gravitation  in  his  fall  from  the 
precipice ;  where  would  be  the  difference  in  the  two 
cases  1  Why,  there  wovdd  be  this  important  difference, 
that  the  force  of  gravity  would  not  conquer  his  desire  not  to 
fall,  while  the  incidents  and  circumstances  which  gave 
strength  to  the  motive  leading  him  to  commit  the  murder, 
would  overcome  his  desire  not  to  commit  it.  In  the  one 
case,  he  would  be  forced  against  his  will,  and  in  the  other 
his  will  would  be  led  captive." — p.  143. 

It  is  by  the  magic  influence  of  the  distinction,  which 
this  writer  so  clearly  illustrates,  that  they  are  enabled  to 
hold  and  aflirm  that  men  are  "  made  willing" — are  com- 
pelled to  become  Christians,  and  yet  are  not  compelled 
against  their  choice,  but  choose  to  become  Clxristians. 
Their  wills  are  "  led  captive." 

Here  then  is  a  basis  broad  enough  to  sustain  the  entire 
fabric  of  Calvinism,  notwithstanding  its  appendage  of 
"  natural  ability."  The  special  agency  of  God  is  neces- 
sary to  the  salvation  of  a  sinner.     That  agency  is  vouch- 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  343 

safed  to  some  and  not  to  others, — and  those  to  whom  it  is 
granted  it  makes  willing  to  do  whatever  is  necessary  to 
salvation. 

On  this  subject  Mr.  DufReld  remarks,  "  Now  it  is  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and 
the  Son,  and  whom  the  Son  giveth  to  whomsoever  he  uill, 
that  a  connection  is  established  between  him  and  the 
guilty  soul  of  man." — p.  348. 

And  in  describing  the  progress  and  result  of  the  Spirit's 
operations  on  the  heart  of  the  sinner,  he  tells  us,  that 
"  object  after  object,  truth  after  truth,  motive  after  motive, 
are  presented.  Reiterated  appeals  are  made  to  the  con- 
science and  the  heart,  and  eventually,  when  he  is  pleased 
in  sovereign  mercy  to  subdue,  one  and  another  beheve,  and 
are  made' willing  to  forsake  their  sins.  They  never  would 
have  done  so,  but  for  such  a  procedure  of  grace  on  the 
part  of  God."— p.  484. 

We  have  the  views  of  Dr.  Beecher  in  the  following 
passages  :  "  The  doctrine  of  the  moral  impotency  of  man 
is  not  inconsistent  with  any  other  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Bible.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  our 
entire  and  absolute  dependance  for  regeneration  on  the 
special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for,  while  it  includes 
a  natural  ability  to  obedience,  as  the  ground  of  obligation, 
it  teaches  the  certainty  of  its  obstinate  perversion,  crea- 
ting in  point  of  fact  a  necessity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
renew,  as  real  and  as  great  as  if  the  impediment  were  a 
natural  impossibility." — Views  in  Theology,  p.  118. 

Compare  the  foregoing  with  the  following :  "  The  ques- 
tion, as  we  have  said,  is  not  a  question  of  possible  or  im- 
possible, but  a  question  of  FACT,  as  to  the  manner  in 
which  God  does  actually  call  effectually  sinners  into  his 
kingdom — a  question  of  wisdom  and  goodness  in  doing 
what  is  best  in  the  best  manner. 

"  I  have  no  sympathy  for  the  opinion  that  it  depends 


344  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

on  sinners  whether  they  be  regenerated  or  not  in  the  day 
of  his  power  ;  or  that  God  does  all  he  can,  and  leaves  the 
event  of  submission  or  not  to  rebel  man,"  &c. — p.  209. 

The  reason  assigned  by  Mr.  Lord,  the  New- York 
author  of  "  Views  in  Theology,"  why  "  men  are  not  led 
earlier  than  they  are  to  the  exercise  of  right  affections, 
inasmuch  as  the  same  motives  are  often  previously  urged 
in  the  same  manner  on  their  sensibilities,"  is,  that  "  the 
commandment  has  never  been  brought  home  to  their  sen- 
sibilities, by  the  higher  influences  of  the  Spirit." — Vol.  3, 
-No,  11,  p.  294. 

A  writer  in  the  Quarterly  Christian  Spectator  gives 
a  most  startling  exhibition  of  this  feature  of  the  New 
School  theological  system,  in  a  "  Review  of  Dr.  Ty- 
ler's Strictures  on  the  Christian  Spectator."  We  have 
there  the  appalling  declaration,  that  "  there  may  be 
acts  requisite  on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  without  which, 
renewing  grace  will  never  be  exerted ;  and  yet  that 
grace  may  not  be  pledged  to  accompany  those  acts  in  any 
instance."  The  writer  adds,  "  It  was  thus  we  stated  the 
case  in  our  concluding  number.  We  there  dwelt  at  length 
on  that  most  alarming  fact  to  impenitent  sinners,  that  the 
intervention  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  no  instance  pledged 
to  any  act  of  theirs  ;  that  there  is  at  best  but  a  bare  '  per- 
adventure'  that  '  God  will  give  them  repentance.'  Nor  is 
this  inconsistent  with  saying  that  sinners  have  something 
to  do  in  order  to  be  saved." — Vol.  2,  No.  1,  p.  156. 

It  is  not  common  for  the  New  School  writers  to  present 
the  subject  in  this  light.  They  generally  teach  that  the 
required  acts  are  invariably  connected  with  salvation  ; 
relying,  for  the  safety  of  Calvinism,  on  the  supposition 
that  none  will  ever  perform  the  exercises  required,  but 
the  elect.  We  are  indebted  for  this  disclosure  to  an 
attempt  to  reconcile  Calvinism  with  the  proper  coudi- 
tionality  of  salvation. 


NEW  DIVINITY— CALVINISM.  345 

The  reader  is  now  fully  apprized  of  one  of  the  securi- 
ties by  Avhich  Calvinism  is  guarded,  while  salvation  is 
offered  to  all,  and  the  ability  and  obligation  of  elect  and 
non-elect,  to  repent  and  believe,  are  strenuously  inculcated. 

Plausible  as  this  theory  of  natural  ability  and  moral  in- 
ability may  appear  at  first  sight,  it  is  liable  to  fatal  excep- 
tions. 

It  fails  to  answer  the  end  designed  by  those  who  resort 
to  it.  It  does  not  remove  the  difficulty  for  which  it  is  in- 
tended. It  is  utterly  inefficient,  except  for  the  purpose  of 
temporary  delusion.  It  may  secure  Calvinism  effectually  ; 
but  it  does  not  furnish  solid  ground  on  which  to  base  the 
general  invitations  of  the  gospel,  and  to  proclaim  a  free 
salvation. 

Of  what  advantage  is  it  for  me  to  possess  a  natural 
ability  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  gospel,  if,  at  the 
same  time,  I  am  subject  to  a  moral  inability  which  ren- 
ders me  absolutely  dependant  on  the  special  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  for  regeneration  ;  so  that  it  does  not  de- 
pend on  myself  whether  I  am  regenerated  or  not ;  and  God 
has  decreed  to  withhold  that  influence  from  me.  So  far 
as  my  prospect  of  salvation  is  concerned,  I  might  as  well 
be  subject  to  a  natural  inability  to  comply  with  these  re- 
quirements. Nothing  is  gained  by  this  theory,  over  that 
which  affirms  an  entire  and  unquaHfied  inabiUty,  on  the 
part  of  the  unregenerate,  to  do  any  thing  toward  their  sal- 
vation except  a  delusive  and  tantalizing  phraseology.  The 
man.  who  offers  salvation  to  all,  on  this  theory,  beheves,  at 
the  same  time,  that  the  repentance  and  salvation  of  any 
depend  on  the  vouchsafement  of  an  influence  which  God 
has  determined  to  withhold  from  a  great  portion  of  out 
race. 

Neither  does  this  theory  vindicate  the  divine  govern- 
ment in  requiring  universal  repentance  and  faith,  and  pun- 
ishing the  impenitent  and  unbelieving.   If  it  would  be  just 
15* 


346  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

for  God  to  demand  repentance  and  faith  under  these  cir- 
cumstances, it  would  be  equally  just  in  case  the  inability 
were  natural.  And  the  infliction  of  punishment  would  be 
equally  just  in  both  cases.  The  attempt  to  justify  the  pun- 
ishment of  the  unregenerate  on  the  ground  that  he  pos- 
sesses a  "kind  of  ability,"  while  another  kind,  wholly  in- 
dispensable, and  for  which  he  is  dependant  on  God,  is  de- 
signedly withheld  from  him,  is  grossly  absurd.  It  would 
not  be  more  absurd  to  require  an  idiot  to  compose  and  de- 
liver an  eloquent  oration,  and  then  punish  him  severely 
for  the  failure  ;  and  undertake  to  justify  the  requisition  and 
the  punishment,  on  the  ground  that  he  possesses  a  kind 
or  kinds  of  ability — that  he  possesses  corporeal  and  moral 
ability — the  organs  of  speech  and  the  faculty  and  power 
of  willing,  and  that  all  that  is  wanting  is  the  intellectual 
ability.  It  woxild  be  as  reasonable  to  require  a  man  to 
distinguish  objects  amid  total  darkness,  and  punish  him 
on  the  ground  that  he  possesses  the  organs  of  vision.  There 
is  something  necessary  which  the  sinner  is  supposed  to 
possess  ;  but  there  is  something  else,  equally  indispensa- 
ble which  he  does  not  possess — which  God  alone  can  im- 
part, and  yet  purposely  withholds.  The  Egyptians  are 
pronounced  tyrants,  because  they  compelled  the  Hebrews 
to  make  bricks  without  the  requisite  quantity  of  straw ; 
they  did  not  cut  off"  the  hands  or  put  out  the  eyes  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  then  require  the  full  quantity  of  bricks. 
They  merely  withheld  one  necessary  article.  And  we 
now  ask  if  it  will  be  contended  that  the  straw  was  of  more 
importance  in  the  manufacture  of  bricks,  than  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  repentance  and  faith  ;  that  while 
there  was  execrable  injustice  in  the  former  case,  it  is  per- 
fectly just  to  withhold  those  influences,  and  yet  require  the 
exercises  for  Avhich  they  are  absolutely  indispensable  ? 
It  is  supposed  that  the  government  of  God  is  sufliciently 
vindicated  by  the  consideration  that  the  inability  of  the  sin- 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  347 

ner  is  moral.  One  writer  makes  use  of  this  short  argument : 
"  moral  and  therefore  criminal."  The  conclusiveness  of 
this  argument  will  depend  altogether  on  the  meaning  at- 
tached to  the  term  moral.  If  it  signify  that  the  inability 
or  unwillingness  is  strictly  voluntary,  the  inference  is  cor- 
rect ;  but  then  there  will  be  this  difficulty,  that  according  to 
the  system  which  we  oppose,  the  inability  is  not  moral  in 
the  sense  of  voluntary.  The  ability  or  willingness,  which 
is  its  opposite,  is  supposed  to  depend,  at  any  imaginable 
period  of  the  sinner's  existence,  on  the  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  those  influences  have  never  been,  and 
never  will  be  imparted  to  any  but  the  elect.  We  caa 
easily  see  how  it  would  be  crimuial  in  a  man  to  starve  him- 
self to  death,  when  he  could  honestly  obtain  plenty  of  food; 
but  the  case  would  be  altered  if  his  starvation  were  owing 
to  his  utter  inability  to  procure  it.  In  the  one  case  he 
would  be  pronounced  giiilty  of  suicide,  in  the  other  an 
object  of  pity. 

The  theory  under  review  has  to  encounter  this  philoso- 
phical difficulty,  admitting  for  a  moment,  that  the  distinc- 
tion on  which  it  is  founded  is  correct.  The  acts  required 
of  the  sinner  are  moral  acts,  and  therefore  require  moral 
power,  just  as  lifting  a  weight  requires  muscular  power. 
But  the  power  required  by  the  sinner  happens  to  be  that 
of  which  he  is  confessedly  and  helplessly  destitute.  So 
that  it  may  be  as  reasonably  required  of  him  to  remove  a 
mountain,  or  build  a  house,  by  argumentation,  as  to  repent 
and  believe  in  his  present  circumstances. 

Again  :  this  theory  involves  an  absolute  contradiction. 
It  represents  men  as  possessing  a  real  ability,  and  yet 
subject  to  a  real  inability,  with  respect  to  the  same  thing 
at  the  same  time.  It  is  quite  possible  for  a  man  to  possess 
ability  to  do  one  thing,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  be 
wholly  unable  to  perform  another ;  or  to  be  able  to  per- 
form a  certain  thing  at  one  time,  and  unable  to  perform  it 


348  NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

at  another  time.  But  to  be  both  able  and  unable,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  same  thing,  and  at  the  same  time,  is  impos- 
sible. If  this  scheme  of  ability  does  not  express  a  contra- 
diction, a  contradiction  is  impossible. 


CHAPTER   XXXII. 

CALVINISM     CONTINUED. 

Hitherto,  we  have  confined  our  argument  on  the  dis- 
tinction of  ability  into  natural  and  moral,  to  the  use  to 
which  it  is  applied.  But  as  it  is  made  the  basis  of  a  per- 
nicious system  of  doctrines,  and  relied  on  to  effect  an 
apparent  reconciliation  between  tenets  which  have  no 
affinities  for  each  other,  we  may  render  som.e  service  to 
the  cause  of  truth  by  examining  the  distinction  itself. 

We  do  not  object  to  distinguishing  power  into  kinds. 
This  is  frequently  done  with  propriety  and  advantage. 
Our  constitutional  faculties  arc  distinguished  into  corpo- 
real or  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral.  Each  class  of 
faculties  is  supposed  to  possess  its  own  peculiar  energy, 
and  hence  we  have  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral 
power.  But  the  propriety  of  distinguishing  power  into 
natural  and  moral  is  more  than  doubtful ;  because  these 
faculties  are  all  natural,  and  the  power  pertaining  to  one 
class  is  as  much  natural  as  that  which  pertains  to  any 
other  class.  The  power  may  be  moral,  but  it  does  not 
follow  that  it  is  not  natural.  It  is  both  natural  and  moral, 
and  not  natural  in  contradistinction  to  moral.  We  may, 
with  as  much  reason,  place  natural  and  intellectual  power 
in  contradistinction  to  each  other,  as  natural  and  moral 
power. 

If  the  term  "  moral"  were  used,  in  this  instance,  in  the 
sense  of  supernatural,  there  would  be  a  real  distinction 


NEW  DtVINITY— 'CALVINISM.  349 

between  natural  and  moral  power.  But  this  is  not  the 
sense  in  which  it  is  used.  And,  even  if  it  were,  our  New 
School  brethren  would  be  chargeable  with  the  inconsist- 
ency of  maintaining,  that  man  has  natural  ability  to  accom- 
plish that  for  which  supernatural  ability  is  indispensable. 
And  further,  if  the  term  moral  in  this  distinction  were 
used  in  the  sense  of  supernatural,  the  distinction  would 
respect,  not  the  kinds,  but  the  sources  of  power.  All  the 
kinds  of  power  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  are  physi- 
•  cal  or  corporeal,  intellectual,  and  moral.  These  kinds  are 
all  natural  to  man ;  and  yet  the  physical,  or  intellectual, 
or  moral  power,  by  which  he  performs  particular  actions, 
may  not  be  natural  to  him.  For  instance,  the  prophets 
and  apostles  had  intellectual  power  naturally ;  but  had 
they  naturally  the  power  to  conceive  and  utter  those  infal- 
lible oracles  by  which  Ave  are  required  to  regulate  our  faith 
and  practice  ?  Certainly  not.  Samson  had  naturally 
physical  or  corporeal  power,  but  that  he  had  naturally  the 
power  necessary  to  perform  those  astonishing  feats  ascribed 
to  him,  is  doubtfid.  The  history  plainly  indicates  that  it 
was  supernatural — given  to  him  by  God  for  the  special 
purposes  for  which  it  was  exerted.  "  When  the  Philis- 
tines shouted  against  him,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came 
mightily  upon  him ;  and  the  cords  that  were  upon  his  arms 
became  as  flax  that  was  burned  with  fire,  and  his  bands 
loosed  from  off"  his  hands.  And  he  found  a  new  jaw-bone 
of  an  ass,  and  put  forth  his  hand  and  took  it,  and  slew  a 
thousand  men  therewith."  Before  he  displaced  the  pillars 
of  his  prison-house,  and  crushed  beneath  the  falling  fabric 
himself  and  the  lords  of  the  Philistines,  he  "  called  on  the 
Lord,  and  said,  O  Lord  God,  remember  me,  I  pray  thee, 
and  strengthen  me.  I  pray  thee,  only  this  once,  O  God, 
that  I  may  be  at  once  avenged  of  the  Philistines  for  my 
two  eyes."  The  connection  between  his  strength  and 
"  the  seven  locks  of  his  head,"  shows  that  his  strength 


350  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

was  supernatural.  This  connection  was  not  natural ; — it 
was  arbitrary  ;  established  by  God  for  purposes  similar  to 
those  for  which  the  Saviour  anointed  the  eyes  of  the  blind 
man  with  clay  and  spittle. 

When,  therefore,  the  New  School  theologians  use  the 
word  natural  to  designate  a  "  kind  of  power,"  and  identify 
natural  power,  as  a  kind,  with  physical  and  intellectual 
power,  in  opposition  to  moral  power,  they  most  egregiously 
misapply  the  term  ;  since  moral  power  is  just  as  much  na- 
tural as  any  other  kind  ;  while  the  physical  and  intellectual 
power  necessary  to  the  performance  of  certain  actions, 
may  not  be  natural,  as  in  the  cases  specified.  The  terms 
*'  natural  power"  and  "  supernatural  power"  do  not  repre- 
sent particular  kinds  of  power.  They  simply  indicate  the 
sources  of  power — whether  it  belongs  to  the  constitution 
of  the  individual,  or  whether  it  is  foreign  to  the  constitu- 
tion, and  imparted  to  him  by  some  other  being. 

But  let  us  inquire  what  is  this  power,  called  moral,  in 
contradistinction  to  natural.  It  is  said  to  consist  in  incli- 
nation. But  we  have  already  seen  that  an  individual  may 
possess  the  desire,  inclination,  or  disposition,  to  perform  a 
particular  action,  and  yet  be  wholly  imable,  notwithstand- 
ing he  may  be  in  the  possession  of  all  his  facldties.  So 
that  the  moral  ability  is  an  ability  which  does  not  constitute 
him  able,  and,  consequently,  is  no  ability  at  all.  But  if 
we  grant,  for  argument's  sake,  that  it  is  a  real  ability,  this 
absurdity  will  follow, — that  I  may  have  a  real  ability  to 
bestow  money  on  a  poor  and  suffering  applicant,  when,  at 
the  same  time,  I  have  not  a  farthing  at  my  disposal. 

Again,  this  definition,  by  identifying  power  with  inclina- 
tion, leads  to  a  most  perplexing  perversion  of  language, 
and  blends,  in  entire  confusion,  some  of  the  plainest  and 
most  distinct  conceptions  of  the  human  mind.  Inclination 
and  ability  are  universally  understood  to  be  distinct.  Men 
are  every  day  pronounced  willing,  and  yet  unable  to  per- 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  351 

form  actions :  and,  on  this  account,  are  excused  or  justi- 
fied. They  are  also  pronounced  able,  and  yet  unwilling  ; 
and,  on  this  account,  are  condemned.  But  this  sapient  dis- 
tinction confounds  what  is  thus  universally  distinguished, 
and  sanctions  the  following  absurd  and  bewildering  con- 
clusions,—that  those  who  are  willing  to  perform  an 
action,  but  wholly  destitute  of  the  requisite  power  and 
means,  are  at  the  same  time  able  to  perform  it ;  they  have 
the  moral  ability ;  while  those  who  have  ample  means, 
and  full  power,  and  are  merely  unwilling,  are  neverthe- 
less unable.  Again,  as  ability  is  the  ground  of  moral  ob- 
ligation, and  justifies  the  punishment  of  disobedience,  it 
follows  from  these  notions  that  men  are  under  obligation 
to  do  what  they  are  unable  because  they  are  able ;  and 
likewise  that  they  are  justified  in  not  doing  what  they  are 
unable  to  do,  because  they  are  able ;  and  likewise  pimished 
for  not  doing  what  they  are  able  to  do,  not  only  wkile  they 
are  unable,  but  also  because  they  are  unable.  Such  is  the 
jargon  which  this  wonderful  philosophy  authorizes. 

But  while  this  distinction,  as  explained  by  its  advocates, 
leads  to  such  horrible  chaos  of  thought  and  expression, 
it  answers  most  admirably  the  purposes  of  New  School 
divinity.  "  Some  kind  of  ability"  to  obey  the  gospel 
must  be  attributed  to  the  sinner,  to  give  plausibility  to  the 
doctrine  of  his  accountability,  and  the  offers  of  a  free  sal- 
vation, while  some  kind  of  inability  must  be  attributed  to 
him  to  secure  Calvinism.  On  the  ground  of  natural 
ability,  the  sinner  can  be  assured  "  that  the  reason  why 
he  does  not  come  to  Christ  is,  he  will  not," — "  that  he  may 
be  saved  if  he  will."  These  propositions  certainly  look 
very  fair  and  unexceptionable.  One  might  suppose  that 
the  most  rigid  Arminian  could  not  fail  to  be  satisfied  with 
them.  Surely  no  Methodist  preacher  preaches  a  freer 
salvation  than  this.  Ay!  and  who  would  suppose,  that 
these  fair-faced,  smooth-tongued   propositions  contained 


352  New  divinity — calvtnism. 

the  doctrine  of  a  real  inability  to  come  to  Christ  and  be 
saved  ;  and  were  carefully  constructed,  so  as  to  secure  the 
doctrine  that  God  has  elected  a  certain  number  to  salva- 
tion from  all  eternity,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  the  rest ;  and 
that  the  number  is  so  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  in- 
creased or  diminished  ?  But  in  what  parts  of  the  pro- 
positions is  this  inability  concealed  ?  In  those  which 
relate  to  the  will.  In  New  Schoolism,  inclination  and 
ability,  disinclination  and  inability  are  identical.  In  the 
New  School  vocabulary,  the  terms  irill  and  cam,  will  not 
and  cannot,  mean  the  same  thing.  They  are  employed 
interchangeably,  as  orthodoxy,  or  the  popular  ear,  may  re- 
quire. Give  the  term  "  will"  its  technical,  New  School 
s'ignification,  and  these  propositions  mean,  "  The  reason 
why  the  sinner  does  not  come  to  Christ  is  he  cannot." 
"  The  sinner  may  be  saved  if  he  can."  In  that  portentous 
and  generally  italicized  clause  "  if  he  will"  lies  the  awful 
record  of  the  fate  of  the  poor  reprobate.  That  "  will"  is 
the  moral  ability  which  none  have  but  those  to  whom  God 
gives  it,  and  he  has  eternally  decreed  to  gi\'e  it  to  none 
but  the  elect. 

If  by  the  iexm  nnll  we  understand  the  power  or  faculty  of 
willing — as  that  is  a  constitutional  faculty — essential  to  free 
agency,  the  absence  of  it  must  constitute,  according  to  the 
distinction  in  question,  a  natural,  and  not  a  moral  inability. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  supposed  that  this  theory  will  appear 
to  greater  advantage  if  the  term  will  be  taken  in  the  sense 
of  actual  volition.  This  is  the  only  alternative  that  re- 
mains. But  if  it  be  thus  explained  and  used,  as  it  often 
is  in  this  controversy,  and  actual  volition  be  considered  to 
constitute  the  moral  ability,  and  the  absence  of  it  the  mo- 
ral inability,  it  will  follow,  indubitably,  that  the  action  and 
the  power  to  perform  it,  are  identical.  The  moral  ability 
is  not  only  the  power  by  which  the  act  is  performed,  but 
it  is  the  act  itself.     The  act  is  its  own  cause.     And  the 


XEW   DIVINITY CALVINIS5f.  353 

explanation  of  the  sinner's  conduct  is  this, — he  does  not 
obey  God  because  he  does  not  obey  God  ;  he  does  not 
perform  the  act  because  he  has  not  the  act.  He  has  not 
the  ability  because  he  does  not  perform  the  ability.  The 
very  plausible  propositions,  that  the  sinner  cannot  obey 
God  unless  he  has  the  moral  ability,  he  can  if  he  will, 
&c.,  convey  to  us  this  most  important  instruction — the 
sinner  cannot  obey  God  tmless  he  does  obey  him  ;  he  can 
obey  him  if  he  obeys  him. 

The  secret  of  the  whole  matter  is  this  :  It  was  found 
necessary  to  distinguish  the  ability  to  serve  God  into 
"  sorts"  or  "  kinds."  The  sinner  must  be  allowed  to  have 
some  sort  of  ability,  or  it  is  useless  to  offer  him  salvation. 
He  must,  at  the  same  time,  be  considered  subject  to  some 
sort  of  inability,  or  the  doctrines  of  partial  redemption  and 
Calvinistic  election  are  endangered.  And  then  a  nomen- 
clature must  be  found  for  these  kinds  of  ability.  The 
name  of  the  ability  which  all  are  supposed  to  possess, 
must  convey  the  idea  of  a  real  ability,  and  yet  have  such 
a  definition  as  may  be  made  to  comport  with  the  scheme 
which  it  seems  to  contradict.  It  may  therefore  be  called 
a  "  natural"  ability,  and  defined  to  consist  in  the  posses- 
sion of  constitutional  faculties,  &c. 

As  for  the  other  kind  of  ability,  it  may  be  called  "  mo- 
ral ;"  for  there  is  not  a  more  convenient  word  in  the  Eng- 
lish language.  It  means  almost  every  thing.  We  have 
the  distinction  of  conduct  into  moral  and  immoral, — of 
faculties  into  moral,  intellectual,  and  corporeal, — of  laws 
into  moral  and  positive — moral  and  ceremonial, — of  evi- 
dence into  moral  and  demonstrative, — of  agents  into  moral 
and  unintelligent ; — and  why  cannot  we  have  a  moral 
ability,  as  distinguished  from  natural  ?  This  is  the  very 
name.  And  if  among  all  the  senses  of  this  wonderful 
word,  the  sense  which  this  distinction  requires  is  not  to 
be  found,  learned  men  need  only  conspire  to  give  it  a  new 


354  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

sense.  Professors  of  colleges  can  honour  it  with  a  new 
diploma.  Both  of  these  terms  are  perfectly  arbitrary. 
They  are  mere  technicalities,  which  none  but  the  initiated 
are  intended  to  understand. 

Unreasonable  as  this  distinction  is,  its  advocates  attempt 
to  justify  it  both  by  reason  and  Scripture.  And  it  is  not 
to  be  wondered  at,  that  men  of  superior  learning  and  ge- 
nius, should  succeed  in  presenting  it  in  somewhat  plausi- 
ble aspects.  But  the  fact  that  the  utmost  efforts  of  such 
men  have  utterly  failed  to  establish  it,  furnishes  no  feeble 
presumption  of  its  invalidity. 

They  insist  that  it  is  universally  recognised.  Mr.  Duf- 
field  says,  "  Every  body  understands  the  subject,  and  dis- 
tinguishes thus  between  natural  and  moral  ability.  The 
giddy  and  thoughtless  child  is  puijighed  who  says  he  can- 
not get  his  lesson,  it  being  well  understood  that  either  a 
dislike  for  his  book,  or  some  other  considerations,  prevent 
him  from  applying  his  mind  to  it.  The  servant  is  ac- 
counted guilty  who  makes  the  same  plea.  The  parent 
sees  a  thousand  exemplifications  of  this  thing,  and  if  he 
were,  in  all  cases,  to  admit  the  truth  of  the  child's  decla- 
rations as  to  ability,  he  might  soon  cease  to  command." 

It  is  readily  admitted  that  the  word  cannot  is  frequently 
used  to  signify  want  of  will  or  disposition,  and  that  the 
phrase  "  I  cannot"  is  frequently  given  in  reply  to  solicita- 
tions, when  the  persons  replying  are  merely  unwilling. 
But  in  such  cases  no  real  inability  exists.  In  many  in- 
stances it  is  not  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  inability ; 
but  merely  that  of  reluctance  or  inconvenience.  It  is 
often  employed  to  express  an  ill-natured  refusal.  It  is 
true,  it  is  sometimes  intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  real 
inability,  where  there  is  nothing  but  uiiwillingness  ;  but 
in  such  cases  persons  may  either  be  mistaken  as  to  the 
power  they  possess,  imagining  themselves  unable  when 
they  are  not ;  or  they  may  assert  what  they  know  to  be 


NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM.  355 

a  falsehood.  In  the  example  of  Mr.  Duffield,  the  child  is 
punished  who  says  "  he  cannot  get  his  lesson."  But  why 
is  he  punished  ?  Because  his  saying  '*  he  cannot  get  his 
lesson"  is  understood  to  be  mere  pretence.  The  parent 
does  not  distinguish  between  natural  and  moral  ability. 
He  distinguishes  between  inability  and  unwillingness. 
He  knows  there  is  no  inability  in  the  case.  The  servant 
makes  the  same  plea,  but  the  master  does  not  believe  him. 
He  knows  the  plea  is  false.  "  If  the  parent,"  says  Mr. 
Duffield,  "  were  in  all  cases  to  admit  the  truth  of  the 
child's  declaration  as  to  ability,  he  might  soon  cease  to 
command."  And  yet,  is  it  not  obvious  that  the  fate  of  this 
theory  depends  altogether  on  admitting  "  the  truth  of  the 
child's  declarations  ?"  If  their  truth  be  not  admitted,  the 
example  furnishes  no  proof  of  the  position  it  was  brought 
forward  to  establish.  It  proves  merely  that  people  everj^- 
where  distinguish  between  inability,  and  an  attempt  at 
imposition,  by  falsely  alleging  an  inability  where  it  does 
not  exist.  But  if  every  person  understands  the  distinction 
of  natural  and  moral  ability — if  the  terms  tmable  and  un- 
willing, cannot  and  will  not,  are  universally  understood  to 
mean  the  same  thing,  is  it  not  somewhat  singular  that  men 
should  attempt  to  impose  on  each  other,  by  saying  that 
they  are  unable,  when  they  are  merely  unwilling  ?  Do 
they  not  know  that  they  are  attempting  to  deceive  by 
words  which  convey  no  deceptive  meaning  ?  Would  they 
not,  if  that  were  the  case,  invariably  qualify  their  declara- 
tions of  inability,  for  the  purpose  of  deception,  by  saying, 
I  am  naturally  unable  ?  The  fact  that  men  do  attempt  to 
deceive  by  pretending  to  inability  simply,  when  they  are 
merely  unwilling,  proves  plainly  that  they  do  not  consider 
inability  and  unwillingness  to  be  the  same  thing. 

In  order  to  make  out  the  universal  recognition  of  this 
distinction,  its  advocates  find  it  necessary  to  misstate  the 
question  at  issue.     Dr.  Beecher  remarks,  "  I  have  said 


356  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

that  this  use  of  the  terras  cannot,  unable,  &c.,  to  indicate 
those  things  which  men  are  able  to  perform,  but  do  not 
choose  to  do,  is  not  a  phraseology  peculiar  to  the  Bible, 
but  is  a  mode  of  speaking  into  which  the  universal  mind 
of  man  in  all  nations,  ages,  and  languages,  has  fallen." 
Again:  "There  is  hardly  an  author  of  repute,  from  the 
time  of  Alfred  to  the  present  day — whether  a  poet,  a  his- 
torian, an  essayist,  or  a  metaphysician,  who  does  not 
afford  abundant  examples  of  such  use  of  the  word  cannot^ 

Now  all  this  is  wide  of  the  mark.  No  one  denies  that 
the  "  terms  cannot,  unable,  &c.,"  are  used  "  to  indicate 
those  things  which  men  are  able  to  perform,  but  do  not 
choose  to  do."  If  this  be  all  the  doctor  undertakes  to 
prove,  he  might  have  declined  the  unnecessary  trouble. 
But  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  proving  that  when- 
ever the  terms  cannot,  unable,  &c.,  are  so  used,  they  signify 
a  real  inability,  and  that,  therefore,  there  are  two  kinds  of 
inability.  All  that  he  has  proved  is,  that  these  terms  are 
frequently  used  when  it  is  understood  that  there  is  no  ina- 
bility in  the  case. 

The  supposed  Scripture  proofs  consist  chiefly  in  ex- 
amples in  which  the  word  "  cannot"  is  used,  when  it  is 
presumed  that  there  is  no  absolute  inability.  The  reason- 
ings on  these  examples  will  be  found  to  proceed  on  two 
false  assumptions. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  assumed  that  the  word  "  cannot" 
invariably  implies  a  real  inabiliti/.  If  this  be  not  the  case, 
the  texts  in  which  it  is  used  may  furnish  no  proof  of  the 
disputed  distinction.  Secondly,  it  is  assumed  Xhat  while 
the  term  cannot  always  implies  real  inability,  it  does  not 
in  any  of  these  examples  import  a  natural  inability.  For 
if  it  does,  the  texts  not  only  furnish  no  proof  of  the  dis- 
tinction of  ability  into  natural  and  moral,  but  expressly 
contradict  the  doctrine  that  all  have  a  natural  ability 
to  serve  God ;  and  thus,  at  the  same  time,  directly  dis- 


NEW  DIVINITY — -CALVINISM.  357 

prove  the  distinction,  and  uproot  the  theory  which  it  is 
intended  to  sustain. 

Let  us  then  test  these  assumptions.  In  the  first  phice, 
we  are  not  authorized  to  infer  invariably  the  existence  of 
a  real  inability  from  the  use  of  the  term  cannot.  It  is  often 
used  when  no  inability  is  intended — to  express  mere  re- 
fusal. And  in  many  instances  when  it  is  used  purposely 
to  convey  the  idea  of  inability,  we  do  not  infer  from  it  the 
existence  of  inability.  We  suppose  the  individual  to  be 
mistaken  in  the  estimate  of  his  power.  He  says,  "  he 
cannot,"  but  we  have  no  doubt  that  he  can.  In  other  in- 
stances it  is  used  for  deception.  The  individual  who  says, 
"  I  cannot,"  knows  at  the  same  time  that  he  can  ;  but  he 
intends  to  deceive.  He  asserts  what  he  knows  to  be  false. 
The  term  sometimes  signifies  inconvenience.  For  in- 
stance, I  ask  a  friend  to  accompany  me  to  some  distant 
place.  He  is  pleased  with  the  proposal,  and  unhesitat- 
ingly consents.  He  makes  all  necessary  preparation ; 
but  just  as  we  are  about  to  leave,  some  emergency  arrests 
his  attention.  He  is  ardently  desirous  to  go,  but  it  is  very 
inconvenient.  He  hesitates  and  resolves,  and  resolves 
and  hesitates ;  and  at  last,  by  a  powerful  effort  of  self- 
denial,  he  says,  "  I  cannot  go."  He  does  not  intend  to 
assert  inability,  but  merely  great  inconvenience  ;  and  this 
he  does  in  the  strong  hyperbolical  language,  "  I  cannot." 

In  reply  to  the  second  assumption,  we  affirm,  that  when- 
ever the  term  imports  real  inability,  that  inability  is  natu- 
ral. It  may,  perhaps,  without  any  impropriety,  be  called 
moral,  but  it  is  as  certainly  a  natural  inability,  as  it  is  an 
inability  at  all.  It  will  be  found,  on  investigation,  to  have 
its  seat  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature.  Moral  inability 
is  said  to  consist  in  a  want  of  will.  The  term  will  in  this 
controversy,  signifies  sometimes  the  faculty  itself — the 
power  of  willing — sometimes  inclination  or  desire — some- 
times the  exercise  of  the  faculty,  or  actual  volition.   Now, 


358  NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

if  we  understand  by  this  term,  the  faculty  of  willing — this 
being  a  natural  faculty,  the  inability  which  consists  in  its 
absence  must  be  natural.  If  we  take  it  to  mean  inclina- 
tion, and  suppose  that  its  absence  constitutes  a  real  ina- 
bility, it  must  be  because  there  is  something  in  the  consti- 
tution of  our  nature,  by  which  we  are  disqualified  to  do 
what  we  have  no  inclination  to  do,  or  to  do  wliich  we  are 
strongly  disinclined  ;  and  the  inability  is  therefore  natural. 
But  if  there  be  nothing  in  the  constitution  of  our  nature 
which  disqualifies  us  for  doing  that  for  which  we  have  no 
inclination — if  still  we  have  ability,  the  want  of  inclina- 
tion does  not  cause  or  constitute  a  real  inability,  and  the 
proof  of  the  distinction  fails.  If  the  term  "  will"  be  un- 
derstood to  mean  simple,  actual  volition,  we  have  the  ab- 
surdity of  identifying  the  act  itself  with  the  ability  to  per- 
form it. 


CHAPTER  XXXm. 

CALVINISM    CONTINUED. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  review  the  examples  adduced 
by  Mr.  Duffield  and  Dr.  Beecher,  in  support  of  this  dis- 
tinction. The  first,  by  Mr.  D.,  is  Samuel's  reply,  when 
God  commanded  him  to  go  and  anoint  David,  "  How  can 
I  go  ?  if  Saul  hear  it,  he  will  kill  me."  He  reasons  thus : 
"  While  Samuel's  unbelief  and  fears  prevailed,  his  will 
was  prevented  from  giving  its  consent  to  go,  and  he  felt 
as  if  it  were  a  thing  utterly  impossible  which  the  Lord  re- 
quired." It  is  here  assumed  that  Samuel  laboured  under 
a  real  inability,  because  he  says,  "  How  can  I  go  ?"  and 
that  it  was  not  a  natural  inability,  but  consisted  in  a  refu- 
sal of  the  will.  He  could  have  gone  if  he  would.  And 
the  inference  is,  that  it  was  therefore  a  moral  inability. 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  359 

Our  answer  Is,  either  that  Samuel  did  not  intend  to  assert 
inability,  but  used  the  expression  figuratively,  to  denote  great 
inconvenience  or  reluctance ;  or  his  feeling  that  it  was  a 
thing  utterly  impossible  was  a  mistaken  impression,  sup- 
posing that  to  be  impossible  which  was  not ;  or  if  there 
was  a  real  inability,  that  inability  was  natural.  It  arose 
out  of  the  constitution  of  his  nature — out  of  the  conflict 
between  the  emotion  of  fear,  and  the  power  of  willing ; 
which  are  constitutional  principles,  in  which  his  fears 
prevailed,  and  prevented  that  act  of  the  will  which  was 
naturally  and  absolutely  necessary  to  obedience. 

The  next  example  is  the  passage  in  which  the  Apostle 
Paul  says,  with  respect  to  the  "  cherubim  of  glory  over- 
shadowing the  mercy-seat"  in  the  holy  of  holies,  "  of 
which  we  cannot  now  speak  particularly."  The  only  re- 
ply necessary  is,  that  the  apostle  did  not  intend  to  assert 
inability.  The  word  "  cannot"  is  used  in  a  figurative 
sense  to  signify  inconvenience.  It  would  have  been  an. 
imnecessary  digression  from  the  subject  which  the  apostle 
was  discussing. 

The  next  example  is  in  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  "  Can 
the  children  of  the  bridegroom  fast,  while  the  bridegroom 
is  with  them  ?  As  long  as  the  bridegroom  is  with  them 
they  cannot  fast."  "  This,"  says  Mr.  D.,  "  is  wholly  an 
inability  of  will."  We  reply,  there  is  no  inability  in  the 
case.  The  Saviour  did  not  intend  to  assert  inability. 
The  language  is  figurative,  and  Mr.  D.'s  comment  confirms 
this  declaration.  He  says,  "  The  thing  itself  is  not  impos- 
sible, but  the  season  is  one  which  is  generally  so  joyous, 
and  is  wont  to  be  so  connected  with  festivity  as  to  render 
it  morally  impossible  to  fast.  Men  are  rendered  unwilling, 
reluctant  to  do  what  they  are  able,  and  under  other  circum- 
stances they  might  be  induced  to  do."  It  is  true,  he  says 
it  is  "  morally  impossible  ;"  but  it  would  seem  that  in  his 
vocabulary,  "  morally  impossible"  and  "  not  impossible" 


360  NEW  DIVINITY — CALtlNlSM. 

mean  the  same  thing :  and  our  Saviour  is  made  to  afKriU 
that  they  are  not  able  to  do  what  it  is  "  not  impossible"  fot 
them  to  do  ;  but  "  what  they  are  able,  and  under  other 
circumstances  might  be  induced  to  do."  Surely  this  text 
and  comment  will  multiply  converts  to  the  distinction  very 
rapidly ! 

The  fourth  example  is  as  follows  : — "  In  like  manner 
the  EA'^angelist  John  says,  '  that  there  are  many  things 
which  Jesus  did,  the  which,  if  they  should  be  written 
every  one,  I  suppose  that  even  the  world  itself  could  not 
contain  the  books  that  should  be  written.'  This  was  not 
a  natural  impossibility."  The  reader  will  at  once  per- 
ceive the  special  aptness  of  this  illustration,  and  how  ad- 
mirably it  sustains  the  author's  distinction.  The  world,  it 
is  supposed,  possessed  a  natural  ability  to  contain  the 
books,  but  was  destitute  of  the  moral  ability — was  unwil- 
ling— positively  refused.  What  a  wicked  world!  The 
reader  will  endeavour  to  suppress  any  irreverent  disposi- 
tion to  smile,  as  this  distinction  is  deemed  of  very  great 
importance.  Desperate  indeed  must  be  the  cause  which 
trusts  to  .such  proofs  for  support.  Who  does  not  perceive, 
at  one  glance,  that  the  evangelist  merely  uses  a  strong 
figurative  expression,  to  suggest  the  vast  number  of  books 
which  the  sayings  of  Christ  would  fill,  if  recorded  1 

Another  example  is  this  :  "  It  is  said  of  our  Saviour,  on 
a  certain  occasion,  that  in  going  into  his  own  country,  'he 
could  there  do  no  mighty  works.'  No  one  will  pretend 
that  this  was  a  natural  inability — that  the  Saviour  lacked 
energy  or  capacity."  Certainly  not.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  pretend  that  there  was  inability  at  all.  Mr.  D.  himself 
explains  the  matter  sufficiently,  "  but  such  was  the  unbe- 
lief of  the  people,  that  it  did  not  comport  with  the  plan  of 
God's  gracious  dealing  Avith  men,  for  him,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, to  exert  his  power." 

Again :  "  He  also  prayed,  '  If  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  361 

pass  from  me.  The  impossibility  in  the  case  was  wholly 
of  a  moral  nature."  To  this  we  make  a  similar  reply. 
The  terms  do  not  always  import  real  impossibility.  The 
Saviour  may  have  meant,  if  it  will  comport  with  the  de- 
sign of  my  mission — with  the  plan  of  salvation.  But  if 
there  was  impossibility  in  the  case,  it  was  natural.  It  can 
be  traced  to  the  perfections  of  Jehovah,  and  the  immuta- 
bility of  his  nature  ;  it  being  contrary  to  the  nature  of  God 
not  to  do  what  he  has  absolutely  purposed. 

"  Of  the  same  description,"  says  Mr.  D.,  "  is  the  ina- 
bility under  which  God  represents  himself  to  have  la- 
boured. '  Though  Moses  and  Samuel  stood  before  me, 
yet  my  mind  could  not  be  toward  this  people.'  '  The  new 
moons  and  sabbaths,  the  calling  of  assemblies,  /  cannot 
away  with.'  And  thus  we  say  a  holy  God  cannot  do  an 
xmholy  thing — a  just  God  cannot  do  an  unjust  thing — a 
faithful  God  cannot  lie.'  "  The  explanation  of  all  these 
examples  has  already  been  furnished.  We  will  only  add, 
that  if  the  inability  which  arises  out  of  the  natural  consti- 
tution be  a  natural  inability,  Jehovah  is  subject  to  a  natural 
inability  to  lie.  We  might  as  well  say  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  volition  whether  he  continue  to  exist,  as  whether  he 
will  contradict  his  own  attributes.  It  is  from  a  necessity 
of  nature  that  he  is  holy,  and  cannot  do  what  is  imholy. 

Mr.  D.  continues,  "  Of  the  same  nature  is  the  inability 
to  sin  which  is  predicated  of  those  who  are  born  again. 
'  Whosoever,'  says  the  Apostle  John,  '  is  born  of  God,  doth 
not  commit  sin,  his  seed  remaineth  in  him ;  and  he  can- 
not sin,  because  he  is  born  of  God.'  "  Whatever  may  be 
the  critical  meaning  of  this  text,  it  fails  to  answer  Mr.  D.'s 
purpose.  He  thus  comments  upon  it :  "  It  is  morally  im- 
possible that  the  believer  should  deliberately  and  wilfully, 
or  habitually  sin  against  God,  and  yet  no  one  will  pretend 
that  he  has  not  ability  to  do  so."  It  seems,  then,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  interpretation,  that  the  moral  impossibility 

16 


3G2  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM, 

is  not  a  real  one,  since  he  supposes  that  "  no  one  will  pre- 
tend that  the  believer  has  not  ability  to  sin  against  God," 
unless  indeed  a  real  possibility  and  a  real  impossibility- 
are  the  same.  The  truth  is  this  :  if  there  is  an  impossi- 
bility in  the  case,  which  we  neither  affirm  nor  deny,  it  is 
as  much  natural  as  moral.  It  is  traceable  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  human  nature  as  acted  upon  by  religious  influence. 

Among  the  Scriptural  proofs  brought  forward  by  Dr. 
Beecher,  are  several  of  the  passages  already  considered. 
Although  there  are  slight  characteristic  differences  in  the 
manner  in  which  they  are  presented,  they  proceed,  in  both 
cases,  on  the  same  principles,  and  one  answer  is  sufficient. 
We  shall  therefore  confine  ourselves  to  the  additional  ex- 
amples presented  by  Dr.  Beecher  : — 

"  Can  ye  drink  of  the  cup  that  I  drink  of  ?"  On  this  text 
he  remarks,  "  It  was  the  cup  of  suffering  and  ignominy ; 
and  he  meant  not  whether  they  could  feel  pain  and  perse- 
cution, and  shame,  (for  he  told  them  that  they  should,) 
but  whether  they  were  willing,  and  believed  that  they 
should  continue  willing,  to  suffer  with  him — '  Can  ye  V 
that  is,  are  you,  and  shall  you  be  willing?"  It  is  very  easy 
to  refute  a  man  when  he  first  refutes  himself.  We  can 
show  by  Dr.  B.'s  own  explanation,  that  the  Saviour  had 
no  reference  to  ability  whatever,  although  he  uses  the 
word  "  can."  He  says,  "  he  meant  not  whether  they  could 
feel  pain,  and  persecution,  and  shame,  (for  he  told  them 
that  they  should,)  but  whether  they  were  loilling"  Of 
course  this  text  fails  to  prove  two  kinds  of  ability,  since 
the  Saviour  has  no  reference  to  ability. 

"  '  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean ;'  that 
is,  thou  canst  do  it,  if  thou  art  willing — implying,  as  in 
the  case  before,  that  he  could  not  cleanse  him,  if  unwil- 
ling, calling  unwillingness  inability."  To  this  we  answer, 
the  text  does  not  assert  inability — but,  on  the  contrary, 
ability.     The  sense  is,  plainly,  "  Thou  canst  make  me 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  363 

clean."  It  therefore  furnishes  no  proof  of  inability  of  any 
kind.  But  does  not  the  expression,  "  if  thou  wilt,"  imply 
"  that  he  could  not  cleanse  him  if  unwilling  ?"  No.  It  is 
a  very  common  form  of  expression  to  affirm  entire  ability, 
whether  there  be  willingness  or  unwillingness.  An  indi- 
vidual is  asked  to  confer  a  favour.  He  replies,  for  the 
purpose  of  refusing  merely,  "  I  cannot,"  knowing  at  the 
same  time  that  it  is  in  his  power.  It  is  instantly  rejoined, 
"  You  can,  if  you  will."  In  this  rejoinder  there  is  no  in- 
tention whatever  of  implying  that  unwillingness  constitutes 
inability.  The  meaning  intended  is,  simply,  you  can.  It 
is  intended  to  affirm  the  ability  of  the  individual,  in  oppo- 
sition to  his  declaration  of  inability.  The  form  of  expres- 
sion may  not  be  strictly  accurate ;  and  it  is  worthy  of 
notice,  that  it  is  not  the  lang-uage  of  an  inspired  man,  but 
of  the  leper  who  came  to  Jesus  Christ.  To  build  an  im- 
portant metaphysical  distinction,  intended  to  sustain  a 
whole  system  of  theology,  on  such  an  expression,  is  not 
to  build  upon  a  rock,  but  on  the  sand.  It  is  like  placing 
the  world  on  the  back  of  the  elephant,  and  the  elephant 
on  the  back  of  the  tortoise,  and  the  tortoise  upon — nothing! 
Besides,  we  have  shown  that  if  unwillingness  constitutes 
inability,  the  inability  is  natural.  It  arises  out  of  the  con- 
stitution of  our  nature. 

"  This  is  a  hard  saying — who  can  hear  it  ?"  We  are 
under  no  necessity  of  inferring  inability  from  this  text. 
Dr.  B.  says  himself,  "  This  means  not  that  a  sinner  has 
no  power  to  hear  the  humbling  doctrine  of  depravity  ;  but, 
who,  as  we  say,  can  bear  it,  that  is,  he  toiUing — be  pleased 
with  it ;"  we  shall  only  add,  that  the  process  by  which  a 
real  inability  is  proved,  in  this  case,  will  prove  that  ability 
natural. 

"  Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup 
of  de/ils."  The  apostle,  when  he  penned  these  words, 
was  cautioning  the  Corinthians  against  idolatry ;  and  the 


364  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

most  probable  meaning  of  them  is,  Ye  cannot,  at  the  same 
time,  be  Christians  and  idolaters.  If  this  is  the  correct 
interpretation,  the  inability  asserted  is  natural.  It  is  as 
impossible  as  that  a  man  should  be  in  two  places  at  the 
same  time.  However,  it  is  not  necessary  to  enter  criti- 
cally into  the  meaning  of  the  text,  to  show  that  it  furnishes 
no  proof  of  the  distinction.  The  doctor's  own  comment 
refutes  him.  He  considers  the  inability  to  be  wholly 
moral.  He  says,  "  The  natural  ability  of  man  qualifies 
him  to  sit  at  either  table."  It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the 
apostle  does  not  affirm  an  inability  to  sit  at  "  either"  table, 
but  at  both  tables.  He  does  not  say,  "  Ye  cannot  drink 
of  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  or  the  cup  of  devils  ; — ye  cannot 
■  make  your  choice;  "but  "Ye  cannot  drink  of  the  cup  of  the 
Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils."  So  the  doctor  himself  pre- 
sents it  in  the  next  clause :  "  but,  while  he  prefers  the 
table  of  the  Lord,  he  cannot  prefer  the  table  of  devils." 
It  seems,  then,  that,  in  the  estimation  of  Dr.  B.,  a  man 
has  a  natural  ability  to  prefer  two  things  to  each  other,  at 
the  same  time  ;  and  that  the  sole  reason  why  he  does  not 
is,  that  he  is  unwilling — and  this  is  the  moral  inability. 
Wonderful  philosophy !  Who  cannot  perceive  that  it  is  as 
naturally  impossible  for  a  man  to  prefer  two  things  to 
each  other  at  the  same  time,  as  it  is  to  exist  and  not  exist 
at  the  same  time.  The  inability  which  the  apostle  here 
asserts  is  therefore  strictly  natural. 

"  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  not  subject 
to  the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  It  is  a  strange 
thing,  to  find  this  text  brought  forward  to  prove  that  man 
has  a  natural  ability  to  keep  the  law  of  God,  and  that  he 
is  merely  unwilling.  By  a  reference  to  the  second  chap- 
ter it  will  be  seen  that  it  furnishes  decisive  proof  to  the 
contrary.  But  let  us  see  the  doctor's  own  reasonino- 
upon  it.  He  says,  "  If  this  means  a  natural  inability, 
how  does  regeneration  help  the  matter,  as  it  includes  the 


NEW  DIVINITY' — CALVINISM.  S<5S 

creation  of  no  new  natural  powers  or  faculties  ?"  Here  16 
the  absurdity  again,  of  identifying  ability  with  constitir- 
tional  powers  or  faculties.  The  doctor  is  at  a  loss  to 
know,  if  it  be  a  natural  ability,  how  regeneration  will  help 
the  matter,  since  it  imparts  no  new  natural  powers  or 
facidties  ?  We  think  we  can  tell  him  in  a  few  words.  It 
helps  the  matter,  not  by  creating  new  powers  or  faculties, 
but  by  imparting  new  power  to  the  powers  or  faculties 
already  possessed.  It  helps  the  matter,  by  changing  the 
mind  from  "  carnal"  to  "  spiritual."  He  proceeds  :  "  But 
if  it  means  that  the  carnal  mind  is  one,  which,  by  its 
friendship  for  the  world,  is  at  enmity  with  God,  then  it  is 
plain  that  the  mind  which  prefers  the  creature  to  God, 
cannot  at  the  same  time  prefer  God  to  the  creature,  though 
the  hinderzlnce  is  not  natural,  but  the  inability  of  the  will 
— a  moral  inability."  He  seems  determined  to  make  the 
public  believe,  that  a  man  has  a  natural  ability  to  prefer 
two  things  opposite  to  each  other  at  the  same  time ; 
that  the  only  reason  why  he  does  not  "  prefer  the  crea- 
ture to  God"  and  "  at  the  same  time  prefer  God  to  the 
creature"  is,  he  will  not.  Against  an  absurdity  like  this 
I  know  of  no  argument ;  and  I  am  not  disposed  to  wield 
against  its  learned  author  the  shafts  of  ridicule. 

Again :  "  And  Joshua  said,  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord, 
for  he  is  a  holy  God."  And  how  are  these  words  .to 
prove  the  existence  of  two  kinds  of  inability  ?  "  The 
people  understood  him  to  say,  that  they  had  no  moral 
ability — no  heart  to  serve  him,  because  they  were  so  sin- 
ful." But  they  replied,  "  Nay,  but  we  will  serve  the  Lord ; 
we  have  the  ability,  because  we  have  the  will." 

This  is  the  most  gratuitous  interpretation  that  could  be 
imagined,  as  will  appear  on  examining  the  whole  passage. 
It  reduces  the  solemn  address  of  Joshua,  and  the  equally 
solemn  response  of  the  people,  to  a  mere  dispute  ;  Joshua 
affirming  that  they  have  "  no  moral  ability,  no  heart  fo  serve 


366  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

God,"  and  they  replying  that  they  have.  But  how  does 
Dr.  B.,  or  any  other  man,  know  that  the  people  understood 
Joshua  to  say,  "  that  they  had  no  moral  ability  to  serve" 
God  1  How  does  he  know  that  they  did  not  understand 
him  to  say  they  had  no  natural  ability  ? 

It  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  reply,  because  it  would 
be  equally  applicable  on  either  supposition.  Whether 
Joshua  meant  natural  or  moral  inability,  the  people  are  re- 
presented by  the  doctor  as  flatly  contradicting  him. 

The  true  meaning  of  this  text  may  be  determined  by  a 
reference  to  the  context.  The  Israelites  were  predisposed 
to  idolatry.  Joshua  exhorts  them  thus  :  "  Now,  therefore, 
fear  the  Lord,  and  serve  him  in  sincerity  and  in  truth,  and 
.  put  away  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served  on  the  other 
side  of  the  flood,  and  in  Egypt ;  and  serve  ye  the  Lord." 
He  then  calls  upon  them  to  decide  immediately  whether 
they  will  serve  God  or  not.  "  And  if  it  seem  evil  unto 
you  to  serve  the  Lord,  choose  you  this  day  whom  ye  will 
serve  ;  whether  the  gods  which  your  fathers  served,  that 
were  on  the  other  side  of  the  flood,  or  the  gods  of  the 
Amorites,  in  whose  land  ye  dwell ;  but  as  for  me  and  my 
house,  we  will  serve  the  Lord."  The  people  replied, 
"  God  forbid  that  we  should  forsake  the  Lord  to  serve 
other  gods."  They  then  recount  his  acts  of  mercy  and 
of  power  in  their  behalf  as  a  people,  and  conclude  "  there- 
fore will  we  also  serve  the  Lord,  for  he  is  our  God." 
Joshua  then  said,  "  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord."  He  nei- 
ther intended  to  assert  inability,  nor  unwillingness,  simply, 
to  serve  the  Lord,  but  the  impossibility  of  their  serv- 
ing the  Lord,  and  idols  at  the  same  time.  The  reason 
which  he  assigns  why  they  cannot  serve  the  Lord,  is 
not  their  supposed  unwillingness,  but  that  "  he  is  a 
holy  God  ;  he  is  a  jealous  God ;  he  will  not  forgive  your 
transgressions  nor  your  sins.  If  ye  forsake  the  Lord, 
and  serve  strange  gods,  then  will  he  turn  and  do  you  hurt. 


NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM.  367 

and  consume  yon,  after  that  he  hath  done  you  good." 
Then  the  people  answered,  "  Nay  ;  but  we  will  serve  the 
Lord  ;" — not  meaning  "  we  have  the  moral  ability,"  in  op- 
position to  Joshua's  supposed  assertion  that  they  had  not ; 
but  meaning  that  they  would  prefer  the  service  of  God  to 
the  service  of  idols,— that  they  would  serve  God  alone. 
This  was  the  decision  to  which  Joshua  urged  them,  when 
he  said,  "  Choose  you  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve." 
The  verses  following  confirm  this  explanation : — "  And 
Joshua  said  unto  the  people,  Ye  are  witnesses  against 
yourselves,  that  ye  have  chosen  you  the  Lord  to  serve 
him.  And  they  said.  We  are  witnesses.  Now,  therefore," 
adds  Joshua,  "  put  away  the  strange  gods  which  are  among 
you,  and  incline  your  heart  unto  the  Lord  God  of  Israel." 
It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  people  did  not  understand 
Joshua  as  asserting  their  unwillingness  to  serve  God ;  but 
their  inability  to  serve  God  and  idols  at  the  same  time, 
which  was  certainly  a  natural  inability ;  and  the  Avords, 
"  Nay,  but  we  will  serve  the  Lord,"  record  their  selection. 
They  chose  the  Lord,  and  Joshua  leads  them  to  ratify  the 
choice  by  a  solemn  covenant. 

" '  How  can  ye  believe  who  receive  honour  one  of 
another,  and  seek  not  the  honour  that  cometh  from  God  V 
That  is,  how  can  you  believe  who  prefer  the  praise  of  man 
more  than  the  praise  of  God ;  who  voluntarily  set  at 
naught  Jesus  Christ  ?"  This  is  intended,  of  course,  for 
another  example  of  moral  inability,  in  opposition  to  natu- 
ral. Whether  it  answers  the  design  or  not,  will  depend 
on  whether  a  man  has  a  natural  ability  to  perform  two 
mental  exercises,  entirely  opposite  in  their  character,  at 
the  same  time.  We  apprehend  that  he  has  not ;  and  that 
the  inability  is  therefore  natural. 

"  The  natural  man  cannot  know  the  things  of  the  king- 
dom of  God."  To  this  text  the  doctor  appends  the  fol- 
lowing questions  and  the   answer : — "  But  why  can  he 


368  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

not  ? — what  hinders  ?" — thus  insinuating  that  this  ia 
another  example  of  inability,  consisting  in  unwillingness. 
Ans.  '  If  our  gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  who  are  lost, 
in  whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blinded  the  hearts  of 
them  that  believe  not.'  '  No  man  can  come  unto  me,  ex- 
cept the  Father  draw  him  ;'  i.  e.  by  his  hearing  and  being 
taught  of  God ;  making  the  reading,  and  especially  the 
preaching  of  his  word,  the  means  of  his  effectual  calling 
by  his  Spirit."  The  reader  will  at  once  perceive  that 
this  answer  is  highly  Calvinistic.  The  natural  man  can- 
not know  these  things  because  he  is  lost,  and  the  gospel 
is  hid  from  him ;  and  the  Father  has  not  seen  proper  to 
"  draw  him" — to  give  him  the  "  effectual  calling  ;"  so  that 
'  the  natural  ability  of  the  sinner  is  an  ability  which  exists 
in  the  absence  of  the  indispensable  means. 

We  think  we  can  answer  the  questions  in  a  different 
manner,  and  quite  as  perspicuously.  The  natural  man 
cannot  know  these  things  "  because  they  are  spiritually 
discerned," — because  they  can  be  known  only  by  the 
spiritual  man,  and  he  is  natural.  They  can  be  discerned 
from  one  position  only,  and  he  occupies  another.  They 
can  be  seen  only  from  a  high  and  commanding  elevation, 
and  he  refuses  to  ascend  it.  His  inability  is,  therefore, 
just  as  much  natural  as  is  Dr.  B.'s  inability  to  see  New- 
York  from  Cincinnati.  Whether  the  natural  man  can  be- 
come spiritual  or  not — and  whence  the  ability  to  become 
spiritual  is  derived — are  other  questions. 

This  is  his  last  Scripture  example.  He  advertises  his 
readers  in  the  next  paragraph,  that  thousands  might  be 
added.  If  among  the  reserved  thousands  there  are  none 
more  relevant  than  those  presented,  he  has  done  well  to 
keep  them  back,  thereby  saving  time,  labour,  and  expense. 
But  if  there  be  one  in  his  prodigious  list  which  bears 
conclusively  on  this  point,  we  would  be  glad  to  see  it ; — 
perhaps  it  may  yet  be  furnished. 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  36f 

He  next  undertakes  to  make  it  appear  that  this  distinc- 
tion is  recognised,  not  only  by  the  Scriptures,  but  by  man- 
kind in  general,  in  all  the  varieties  of  social  intercourse, 
"  from  the  familiarity  of  conversational  and  business  dia- 
lect, up  to  the  most  laboured  efforts  of  argument  and  elo- 
quence." For  this  purpose,  he  presents  a  number  of 
"  examples  from  writers  of  eminence."  Some  of  them 
we  will  examine. 

Edwards  is  first  introduced : — "  To  give  some  instan- 
ces of  this  moral  inability,  a  woman  of  great  chastity  and 
honour  may  have  a  moral  inability  to  prostitute  herself 
to  her  slave."  So  she  may,  and  a  natural  inability  like- 
wise. It  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  things,  that  a  woman 
should  sustain  such  opposite  characters  at  the  same 
time.  But  she  may  cease  to  be  "  a  woman  of  great  honour 
and  chastity,"  and  then  there  may  be  no  inability,  either 
natural  or  moral. 

"  A  child  of  great  love  and  duty  may  be  unable  to  be 
willing  to  kill  his  father."  Certainly,  and  the  inability  is 
strictly  natural.  He  must  cease  to  be  "  a  child  of  great 
love  and  duty,"  and  then  he  may  be  able  to  "  be  willing  to 
kill  his  father."  The  faculties  immediately  employed  in. 
willing  are  just  as  much  natural  as  those  employed  in 
executing  the  volitions  of  the  mind. 

"  A  drunkard,  under  such  and  such  circumstances,  may 
be  unable  to  forbear  taking  strong  drink."  Perhaps  he 
may,  and  the  inability  may  be  natural,  originating  in  the 
human  constitution  as  enfeebled  by  drunkenness,  and 
acted  upon  by  "  such  and  such  circumstances." 

"  A  very  malicious  man  may  be  unable  to  exert  benevo- 
lent acts  to  an  enemy,  or  to  desire  his  prosperity;  yea, 
some  may  be  so  under  the  power  of  a  vile  disposition 
that  they  may  be  unable  to  love  those  who  are  most 
worthy  of  their  esteem  and  affection."  And  whence  the 
inability  ?     Has  it  not  its  origin  in  the  constitution  of 

16* 


370  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

things — in  the  natural  impossibility  of  sustaining  two 
diametrically  opposite  characters  at  the  same  time — of 
being  both  malicious  and  benevolent  at  the  same  time 
tow^ard  the  same  object  ?  It  is  therefore  a  natural  ina- 
bility. Whether  the  man  may  cease  to  be  malicious,  and 
escape  from  the  power  of  a  vile  disposition,  is  another 
question.  We  believe,  that,  through  the  grace  of  God, 
he  may,  and  then  the  inability  will  cease. 

"  A  strong  habit  of  virtue,  and  a  great  degree  of  holi- 
ness, may  cause  a  moral  inability  to  love  wickedness  in 
general,  may  render  a  man  unable  to  take  complacence  in 
vv^icked  persons  or  things  ;  or  to  choose  a  wicked  life,  and 
prefer  it  to  a  virtuous  life."  That  is,  as  I  understand  it, 
while  a  man  has  "  a  strong  habit  of  virtue,  and  a  great  de- 
gree of  holiness,"  he  cannot  "love  wickedness  in  general," 
nor  "  take  complacence  in  wicked  persons  or  things,"  nor 
*'  choose  a  wicked  life  in  preference  to  a  virtuous  life." 
Certainly  not ;  because  to  do  these  things  would  imply 
that  he  had  no  holiness  at  all,  and  a  strong  habit  of  vice. 
The  inability  in  this  case  is  like  that  which  stands  in  the 
way  of  his  existing  and  not  existing  at  the  same  time.  It 
is  another  question,  whether  he  may  suffer  his  "  strong 
habit  of  virtue  and  great  degree  of  holiness"  to  be  im- 
paired and  destroyed,  and  then  "  love  wickedness  in 
general,"  &c. 

"  And  on  the  other  hand,  a  great  degree  of  habitual 
wickedness  may  lay  a  man  under  an  inability  to  love  and 
choose  holiness,  and  render  him  utterly  unable  to  love  an 
infinitely  holy  being,  or  to  choose  and  cleave  to  him  as  his 
chief  good."  But  what  does  the  natural  ability  of  a  man 
"  to  love  and  choose  holiness"  amount  to,  when  from  some 
cause,  or  causes,  he  is  not  only  "  laid  under  an  inability," 
but  is  "  utterly  unable  ?"  It  is  evidently  no  ability.  The 
example  sufficiently  refutes  itself.  It  is,  however,  the 
doctrine  of  Methodism,  that  while  man,  in  consequence  of 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  371 

depravity,  has  not  naturally  the  ability  "  to  love  God  and 
choose  holiness,"  the  grace  of  God  is  given  to  counteract 
that  depravity,  so  that  he  may  be  enabled  to  perform,  at 
any  time,  the  first  of  the  series  of  acts  which  leads  on, 
with  greater  or  less  rapidity,  to  ultimate  holiness ;  and 
likewise  to  assist  him  in  the  performance  of  each  succes- 
sive act ;  and  that  this  grace  is  given  to  every  man. 

Buck  is  next  brought  forward.  It  is  the  more  important 
to  notice  his  examples,  as  his  Dictionary,  in  which  they 
are  found,  has  a  very  extensive  circulation.  Examples 
of  natural  and  moral  inability  are  placed  in  opposite 
columns. 

With  reference  to  those  intended  to  illustrate  natural 
inability,  there  can  be  no  dispute.  They  are  what  they 
profess  to  be. 

"  Cain  could  not  have  killed  Abel,  if  Cain  had  been  the 
weakest,  and  Abel  aware  of  him. 

"  Jacob  could  not  rejoice  in  Joseph's  exaltation  before 
he  heard  of  it. 

"  The  woman  mentioned  in  2  Kings  vi,  29,  could  not 
kill  her  neighbour's  son  and  eat  him,  when  he  was  hid, 
and  she  could  not  find  him. 

"  Hazael  could  not  have  smothered  Bcnhadad,  if  he  had 
not  been  suffered  to  enter  his  chamber." 

The  examples  of  moral,  as  distinguished  from  natural 
inability,  are,  however,  somewhat  doubtful. 

"  Cain  could  not  have  killed  Abel,  if  Cain  had  feared 
God  and  loved  his  brother."  That  is,  as  we  suppose, 
while  he  feared  God  and  loved  his  brother.  We  readily 
assent  to  this  ;  but  the  inability  is  natural ;  just  as  much  so 
as  "if  Cain  had  been  the  weakest,  and  Abel  aware  of  him." 
This  example  is  of  the  same  class  as  those  from  Edwards. 
It  arises  out  of  man's  constitutional  inability  to  entertain 
and  manifest  directly  opposite  dispositions  and  feelings, 
toward  the  same  object,  at  the  same  time.     It  was  natu- 


372  NEW   DIVINITY CAL\'INISM. 

rally  impossible  that  Cain  should  fear  God  and  love  his 
brother,  and  be  regardless  of  God,  and  hate  and  murder 
his  brother,  at  the  same  moment. 

"  Potiphar's  wife  could  not  rejoice  in  it  (Joseph's  ex- 
altation) while  she  continued  under  it."  Why  ?  What 
reason  can  be  assigned  for  this  assertion  ?  How  does  this 
prove  the  distinction  ?  The  illustration  is  too  brief  to  be 
intelligible,  and  we  will  let  it  go  for  what  it  is  worth. 

"  Had  that  woman  (mentioned  in  2  Kings,  &c.)  been  a 
very  affectionate  mother,  she  could  not  have  killed  her 
son  in  a  time  of  plenty,  as  she  did  in  a  time  of  famine." 
Very  well !  And  why  could  she  not  as  easily  have  killed 
her  son  in  a  time  of  plenty  1  Because  the  act  would  have 
been  malignant  and  murderous.  And  is  it  not  as  much  a 
natural  impossibility  that  "  a  very  aifectionate  mother" 
should  be,  at  the  same  time,  actuated  by  cruel  and  mur- 
derous dispositions  toward  her  offspring,  as  that  she 
should  be  a  mother  and  not  a  mother  at  the  same  time  ? 
The  inability  in  the  case  is  therefore  natural.  It  is  true, 
she  might  have  ceased  to  be  a  very  affectionate  mother, 
and  become  a  hard  hearted  and  cruel  one,  and  then  the 
inability  Avould  have  been  removed. 

"  If  a  dutiful  and  afi'ectionate  son  had  been  waiting  on 
Benhadad  in  Hazael's  stead,  he  could  not  have  smothered 
him,  as  Hazael  did."  Why  not  1  Evidently  on  account 
of  the  natural  impossibility  of  an  affectionate  son's  being 
at  the  same  time  actuated  by  murderous  dispositions  to- 
ward his  father. 

He  then  proceeds  to  quote  Lord  Bacon,  Dr.  Johnson, 
Shakspeare,  Burke,  Hon.  Daniel  Webster,  Alexander 
Hamilton,  and  Judge  Story.  It  is  remarkable,  however, 
that  in  none  of  the  quotations,  although  most  of  these 
authors  are  quite  modern,  is  this  distinction  named  or 
referred  to.  Its  advocates  have  not  been  able,  Avith 
all  their   ingenuity,  and  learning,   to   force   it   into   the 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  373 

current  of  general  literature.  The  proof  which  these 
examples  furnish  is  precisely  similar  to  that  furnished  by 
the  Scriptures.  They  use  the  term  cannot  when  there 
is  obviously  no  inability.  Dr.  B.  concludes  that  they 
must  surely  mean  inability,  because  they  say  cannot;  and 
infers  that,  inasmuch  as  there  is  ability  to  do  the  things 
with  respect  to  which  inability  is  predicated,  there  must, 
therefore,  be  two  kinds  of  inability. 

Some  of  these  examples  are  not  only  irrelevant,  but 
also  quite  unfortunate  for  the  distinction  they  are  intended 
to  establish.  Take  the  one  from  Dr.  Johnson,  introduced 
as  bringing  natural  and  moral  inability  together  in  one 
sentence.  "  There  never  can  be  wanting  some  who  will 
consider  that  a  whole  life  cannot  be  spent  on  syntax  and 
etymology,  and  that  even  a  whole  life  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient." It  would  be  exceedingly  difficult,  we  apprehend, 
for  any  but  a  New  School  Calvinist  to  perceive  the 
slightest  trace  of  the  distinction  in  this  passage.  The 
meaning  of  it  appears  to  be  simply  this  : — There  will 
always  be  some  who  will  consider  that  a  whole  life  can- 
not conveniently  or  reasonably  be  spent  on  syntax  and 
etymology,  and  that  if  a  whole  life  could  be  so  spent,  it 
would  be  insufficient.  But  how  would  it  read  on  Dr.  B.'s 
plan  of  interpretation  1  Here,  however,  we  are  at  a  loss  ; 
for  he  has  furnished  no  satisfactory  marks  by  which  we 
may  ascertain  where  he  locates  the  natural,  and  where 
the  moral  inability.  If  he  intends  the  terms  "  never  can" 
and  "  cannot"  to  represent  the  natural,  and  the  terms 
"  would  not"  the  moral  inability,  the  sense  is  ridiculous. 
Try  it: — "  It  is  naturally  impossible  that  there  should  be 
wanting  some,  who  will  consider  that  it  is  naturally  im- 
possible that  a  whole  life  should  be  spent  on  syntax  and 
etymology,  and  that  even  a  whole  life  is  morally  unable, 
unwilling  to  be  sufficient."   Indeed,  construe  the  passage 


374  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

as  you  may,  according  to  the  doctrines  it  is  brought  for- 
ward to  establish,  and  it  is  perfect  nonsense. 

Equally  inappropriate  is  the  following  quotation  from 
Mr.  Webster : — "  In  the  very  nature  of  things,  a  charter 
cannot  be  forced  upon  any  body ;  no  one  can  be  compelled 
to  accept  a  grant." — This  is  intended  as  an  example  of 
moral  inability.  It  is  very  plain,  that  Mr.  W.  did 
not  intend  to  assert  inability  to  force  a  charter,  &c. ; 
but  that  the  thing  could  not  be  done  consistently,  rea- 
sonably, lawfully ;  and  the  inability  to  do  an  unlawful 
thing  lawfully,  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  natural 
inability.  No  man  can  do  it,  let  him  will  ever  so  reso- 
lutely. But  let  us  suppose  that  Mr.  W.  intended  to 
affirm  a  moral,  in  contradistinction  to  a  natural  inability, 
and  we  must  understand  him  as  saying,  "  In  the  very 
nature  of  things,  a  charter  will  not  be  forced  upon  any 
body ;  no  one  tdll  be  compelled  to  accept  a  grant."  Thus 
the  passage  is  changed  from  its  argumentative  character  into 
a  prophetical  declaration  that  no  such  event  will  ever  occur. 

The  passage  from  Shakspeare  is  eminently  unfortunate : 

"  Pray,  I  cannot. — 
Though  inclination  be  as  sharp  as  'twill, 
My  stronger  guilt  defeats  my  strong  intent, 
And,  like  a  man  to  double  business  bound, 
I  stand  and  pause  where  I  shall  first  begin. 
And  both  neglect. 

But  O  what  form  of  prayer 
Can  serve  my  turn  ?     Forgive  me  my  foul  murder! 
That  cannot  be  ;  since  1  am  still  possess'd 
Of  those  effects  for  which  I  did  the  murder; 
My  crown,  mine  own  ambition,  and  my  queen." 

Hamlet,  scene  ii,  act  3. 

The  dramatic  personage  is  represented  as  saying  that 
he  "  cannot  prayP  Is  this  a  natural  or  moral  inability  ? 
The  New  School  doctrine  is,  that  every  man  has  a  natural 


NEW   DIVINITY CAXVINISM.  375 

ability  to  do  what  God  requires  of  him,  and  that  his  ina- 
bility is  wholly  moral — consisting  in  want  of  will.  It  is 
to  sustain  this  distinction  and  doctrine,  that  the  poet  is 
quoted.  But,  most  unhappily,  he  represents  his  hero  as 
unable  to  pray,  notwithstanding  he  has  the  moral  ability, 
•'  Though  inclination  be  as  sharp  as  'twill."  He  has  a 
"strong  intent,"  but  his  stronger  guilt  defeats  it. 

Thus,  in  our  judgment,  do  all  these  examples  signally 
fail  to  support  this  distinction.  It  derives  its  plausibility, 
chiefly,  from  varied,  cautious,  and  vmfair  modes  of  state- 
ment. 

Having  corrected  Dr.  B.  on  this  point,  let  us  now  no- 
tice an  instance  by  Mr.  Barnes.  He  says,  in  his  "  De- 
fence," p.  153,  "  There  are  two  kinds  of  inability — one 
arising  from  want  of  physical  powers,  the  other  from  a 
want  of  inclination  or  will.  The  inability  of  a  man  to 
remove  a  mountain  is  one  thing,  and  an  inability  to  do 
right,  arising  from  a  strong  love  of  sin,  is  another."  Now 
this  looks  very  plausible,  but  it  is  fallacious.  It  is,  osten- 
sibly, based  on  the  well-known  distribution  of  human 
faculties  into  physical  or  corporeal,  intellectual  and  moral, 
and  the  corresponding  and  similar  distinction  of  the 
power  by  Avhich  these  classes  of  faculties  are  respectively 
exercised.  But,  according  to  this  distinction,  there  are 
three  kinds  of  power.  Mr.  B.  does  not  say,  "  there  are 
two  kinds  of  inability,  the  one  arising  from  the  want  of 
natural  ability,  the  other  from  the  want  of  moral  ability," 
although  such  is  his  meaning.  He  uses  the  wox^  physical 
instead  of  natural.  Now  this  word  is  ambiguous.  It  is 
defined  by  lexicographers,  and  used  by  writers,  to  signify 
sometimes  what  is  material,  in  opposition  to  what  is  intel- 
lectual or  moral ;  and  sometimes  whatever  is  natural  or 
constitutional.  The  advantage  which  Mr.  B.  gains  by 
substituting  "physical"  for  natural,  is  this — if  we  deny 
the  distinction  of  physical  and  moral  ability,  he  can  take 


376  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

the  word  physical  in  the  sense  of  material  or  corporeal, 
and  thus  place  us  in  the  position  of  denying  what  we  do 
not  intend  to  deny,  and  can  confront  us  with  authorities. 
We  must  admit  "  that  the  inability  to  remove  a  mountain 
is  one  tiling,  and  the  inability"  to  compose  an  oration,  or 
"  to  do  right,  arising  from  a  strong  love  of  sin,  is  another." 
When  this  point  is  gained,  he  can  change  the  sense  of 
the  word  "  physical"  from  corporeal,  to  constitutional  or 
natural,  and  claim  to  have  established  the  distinction  of 
natural  and  moral  ability.  But  the  sophistry  of  all  this 
has  been  sufficiently  exposed.  While  there  is  a  real  dis- 
tinction between  corporeal  power  and  moral  power,  be- 
tween the  power  to  lift  a  weight,  or  "  remove  a  moun- 
tain," and  the  power  to  "vy^ill  to  obey  God,  there  is  not  a 
distinction  between  natural  and  moral  power ;  or  if  there  is 
a  difference,  it  is  merely  that  which  exists  between  genus 
and  species — between  bird  and  eagle.  The  natural  ability 
may  not  be  moral,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  moral 
ability  is  not  natural.  Its  advocates  find  it  necessary  to 
keep  up  a  constant  ambiguity  of  language.  The  terms 
power,  physical,  natural,  moral,  can,  cannot,  are  all  used 
ambiguously.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  latter  term 
is  often  used  figuratively ;  but  this  causes  no  ambiguity — 
no  embarrassment.  Its  meaning  is  easily  determined  by 
its  connection.  It  is  so  frequently  used,  in  all  its  modes 
of  application,  in  the  most  common  intercourse  of  life, 
that  the  most  ignorant  are  in  no  danger  of  misunderstand- 
ing it.  It  is  only  when  employed  in  conveying  the  most 
important  instructions — the  instructions  of  the  gospel, 
that  it  gives  <an  uncertain  sound.  The  advocates  of  New 
Divinity  have  undertaken  to  make  it  sustain  two  opposite 
meanings  at  the  same  time.  For  instance — when  it  is 
used  figurativcdy,  they  construe  it  to  mean  unwillingness, 
in  contradistinction  to  inability.  Thus  far  all  is  right. 
But,  in  order  to  make  out  two  kinds  of  ability,  they  con- 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  377 

strue  it  at  the  same  time  to  mean  a  real  inability.     To 
this  we  must  be  permitted  to  object. 

And  while  the  philosophy  of  Shakspeare  (whom  Dr. 
Beecher  describes  as  being  "  as  noted  for  using  language  as 
men  in  every  situation  use  it,  as  he  is  for  delineation  of  cha- 
racter") exhibits  so  little  affinity  to  that  of  New  School  Cal- 
vinism, it  is  remarkable  how  it  harmonizes  with  the  repre- 
sentations of  the  apostle.  So  far  from  identifying  will  and 
ability,  Paul  describes  men  as  unable  to  do  what  they  are 
strongly  inclined,  and  make  repeated  efforts  to  do.  In  Rom. 
vii,  he  writes  : — "  For  we  know  that  the  law  is  spiritual : 
but  I  am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  For  that  which  I  do  / 
allow  not :  for  what  /  would  that  I  do  not ;  but  what  I 
hate  that  I  do."  "  For  to  will  is  present  with  me  ;  but 
how  to  perform  that  which  is  good  I  find  not.  For  the 
good  that  /  would  I  do  not ;  but  the  evil  which  I  would 
not,  that  I  do."  "  I  find  then  a  law  that  when  I  would 
do  good,  evil  is  present  with  me.  For  I  delight  in  the 
law  of  God  after  the  inward  man :  but  I  see  another  law 
in  my  members  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and 
bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin  Avhich  is  in 
my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall  de- 
liver me  from  the  body  of  this  death  V  But  if  we  may 
be  unable  to  do  the  things  which  we  are  willing  and 
endeavour  to  do,  it  is  plain,  that  willingness  does  not  con- 
stitute ability  to  do  them, — that  will  and  ability  are  not 
the  same  ;  unless  we  may  be  able  to  do  that  which  we 
are  unable  to  do.  The  disagreement  between  the  apostle 
and  these  modern  theorists  is  irreconcilable.  They  teach 
that  all  men  have  a  natural  ability  to  do  what  God  re- 
quires, and  all  that  is  necessary  to  secure  their  obedience 
is  the  will,  which  constitutes  the  moral  ability ;  from 
which  it  follows  that  so  soon  as  a  man  becomes  willing 
he  is  fully  able — he  had  the  natural  ability  before,  he  has 
the  moral  ability  now.     The  apostle  most  unequivocally 


378  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

teaches  that  men  may  be  willing  and  yet  unable,  and 
wretched  on  account  of  that  inability,  and  wholly  depend- 
ant on  a  deliverer  to  supply  the  necessary  power.  He 
therefore  completely  explodes  the  distinction  of  natural 
and  moral  ability. 

We  conclude  our  argument  with  the  following  addi- 
tional objection: — If  God  requires  sinners  to  be  willing 
to  serve  him — if  to  be  willing,  is  to  be  able,  and  to  be  un- 
willing, is  to  be  unable — and  if  the  sinner  has  a  natural 
ability  to  do  what  is  required,  the  sage  conclusion  inevita- 
bly results,  that  the  sinner  has  a  natural  alility  to  he  able 
to  serve  God. 

Indeed,  so  perfectly  trifling  is  this  distinction,  that  it 
would  be  matter  of  astonishment  that  men  of  understand- 
ing, much  more  of  learning,  should  advocate  or  counte 
nance  it,  were  it  not  for  its  importance  in  seeming  to  re- 
concile a  free  salvation  with  Calvinism.  It  is  a  mere  hy- 
pothesis for  the  solution  of  a  theological  difficulty. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 

CALVINISM    CONTINUED. 

The  difficulties  by  which  this  distinction  is  encumbered, 
have  brought  it  into  disfavour  with  some  of  the  leading 
writers  of  this  school,  who  have  surrendered  it.  They 
have  not  surrendered  the  doctrines  founded  upon  it,  but 
merely  the  terms  by  which  they  are  represented.  They 
object  to  any  language  in  prayer  or  direct  instruction, 
which  asserts  or  implies  that  man  is  subject  to  inability  to 
comply  with  all  the  terms  of  salvation.  They  perceive 
that  the  same  end  is  secured  by  asserting  a  disinclination, 
or  want  of  will,  merely,  which  is  supposed  to  hinder  the 
repentance  of  the  sinner  as  efFectuallv  as  if  he  were  ab- 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  379 

solutely  unable  ;  and  the  removal  of  which  depends  on  the 
influences  of  the  Spirit.  Indeed,  the  distinction  itself 
could  be  of  no  particular  service  to  Calvinism  at  anytime, 
except  as  it  may  serve  to  prevent  alarm  at  the  doctrine  of 
the  sinner's  ability  without  grace.  It  is  more  than  probable 
that  when  it  was  introduced,  any  theory  Avhich  affirms  the 
ability  of  the  unregenerate,  without  some  neutralizing 
qualification,  would  have  been  rejected  at  once  by  the  great 
body  of  Calvinists.  But  the  doctrine  of  a  moral  inability, 
which  nothing  but  electing  grace  could  remedy,  would  so 
chime  in  with  the  orthodoxy  of  the  times,  as  to  make  way 
for  its  Pelagian  spouse — the  doctrine  of  a  natural  ability. 
Among  those  Avho  are  disposed  to  proclaim  a  divorce 
between  this  long  wedded  but  somewhat  quarrelsome  pair, 
we  find  Mr.  Hinton.  He  says,  "  The  appropriateness  and 
expediency  of  the  term  moral  inability  to  denote  a  wrong 
disposition  is  highly  questionable.  It  satisfied  the  disputants 
of  past  days  ;  but,  at  the  time,  it  rather  concealed  than  ex- 
hibited the  truth  contended  for,  and  ever  since  it  has  ra- 
ther occasioned  perplexity  than  facilitated  inquiry.  The 
existence  o{  inability  on  the  part  of  sinners  was  the  main 
position  which  the  opposing  divines  had  maintained  ;  and 
the  adoption  of  the  phrase  in  question,  permitted  them  to 
continue  to  maintain  it.  Its  being  qualified  by  the  term 
moral  was  of  little  consequence  ;  still,  they  said,  you  allow 
inability  to  exist,  and  whether  natural  or  moral  makes  no  dif- 
ference, IT  IS  INABILITY." p.  295. 

Mr.  H.  is,  however,  careful  to  make  it  appear  that,  in 
giving  up  the  moral  inability,  he  only  abandons  the  phrase- 
ology. He  holds,  most  tenaciously,  to  an  indisposition, 
on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  to  serve  God,  which  renders  the 
influences  of  the  Spirit  absolutely  necessary ;  that  these 
influences  are  vouchsafed  to  some  and  not  to  others  ;  and 
that  the  moral  differences  among  men,  in  view  of  which 
some  are  saved  and  others  damned,  are  made  by  God  him- 


380  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

self.  One  or  two  brief  examples  will  suffice  to  justify  our 
affirmation.  He  says : — "  What  has  been  hitherto  ad- 
vanced may  be  thus  briefly  summed  up.  The  influence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  absolutely  necessary  to  conver- 
sion, and  CERTAINLY  EFFECTUAL  to  it.  These  are  senti- 
ments of  grea,t  glory  and  deep  importance." — p.  76. 
What  he  means  by  "  certainly  effectual"  is  explained  at 
the  commencement  of  the  chapter  : — "  By  this  language  we 
mean  that  whensoever  the  Spirit  begins  to  operate  upon 
the  heart  of  a  sinner  for  his  conversion,  he  invariably  ac- 
complishes the  work.  He  never  suspends  his  interference 
until  the  work  is  achieved ;  nor  are  there  any  cases  in 
which  his  influence  is  ineflfectual  to  its  attainment." — p.  68. 
The  meaning  of  this  is  too  plain  for  misapprehension  ;  and 
the  inference  is  too  obvious  for  dispute,  that  if  a  sinner  is 
not  converted,  it  is  because  the  Spirit  of  God  never  began 
to  operate  on  the  heart  of  that  sinner  for  his  conversion, 
although  such  operations  are  absolutely  necessary. 

The  first  article  in  the  American  Biblical  Repository 
for  January  1839,  entitled,  "Introductory  observations," 
contains  an  elaborate  statement  of  doctrines  professedly  co- 
pied from  the  correspondence  between  Drs.  Woods  and 
Beecher,  in  1832,  as  published  in  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims," vol.  V,  p.  496,  seq.  "  In  the  statement,"  it  is  said, 
"  the  two  distinguished  and  enlightened  divines  above 
named  express  their  cordial  agreement.  They  also  ex- 
press it  as  their  united  opinion  '  that,  with  few  exceptions, 
the  ministers  of  the  orthodox  Congregational  Church  in 
New-England,  together  with  most,  if  not  all  the  Presby- 
terian ministers  throughout  the  United  States,  will  give 
their  full  assent  to  this  statement.'  They  also  regard  it  as 
'  a  solid  basis  of  ministerial  fellowship  and  co-operation.'  " 

In  the  articles  on  "  regeneration"  and  "  election" 
we  have  the  following  sentiments  : — 

**  The  dependance  of  man,  as  a  sinner,  on  the  Holy  Spi- 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  381  ' 

rit,  is  so  real,  universal,  and  absolute,  that  no  human 
being  ever  was,  or  ever  will  be  saved  without  special 
grace.  The  natural  ability  which  avails  to  create  obliga- 
tion, and  to  bring  on  the  disobedient  a  just  condemnation, 
never  avails,  neither  alone  or  by  any  power  of  truth  or 
help  of  man,  to  recover  a  sinner  from  alienation  to  evan- 
gelical obedience,  because  of  the  inflexible  bias  of  his  will  to 
evir 

Again :  "  An  obstinate  will  demands  as  really  and  cer- 
tainly the  interposition  of  special  influence,  as  if  the  ina- 
bility were  natural,  though  the  difference  in  respect  to  ob- 
ligation and  guilt  and  deserved  punishment  is  infinite." 

Again :  "  But  this  persuasion  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  ef- 
fectual calling  is  not  the  moral  suasion  of  man's  exerting, 
or  sufficient  grace  of  God's  giving,  whose  efficacy  depends 
on  the  will  of  the  sinner,  and  not  on  the  energetic  and 
transforming  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  '  as  the  Pela- 
gians do  vainly  talk ;'  nor  is  it  of  a  kind  which,  when  ex- 
erted, the  sinner  by  his  free  will  ever  does  resist  ;  but  it 
is  manifestly  an  operation  supernatural,  at  the  same  time 
most  powerful  and  most  sweet,  wonderfid,  secret,  and  in- 
effable in  its  power,  according  to  the  Scripture,  not  less 
than  or  inferior  to  creation,  or  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  :  so  that  all  those  in  whose  hearts  God  works  in  this 
admirable  manner  are  certainly,  infallibly,  and  effica- 
ciously regenerated,  and  in  fact  believe." 

Again  :  "  All  the  subjects  of  God's  special  renewing 
grace  are  chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world,  that  they  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before 
him  in  love,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace  ;  not  on 
principles  of  law  as  meriting  this  favour,  and  not  on  the 
ground  of  repentance,  faith,  or  good  works  foreseen."-p.  13. 

We  are  here  instructed,  that  such  is  the  dependance  of 
the  sinner  on  the  special  grace  of  God,  that  no  man  ever 
was,  or  ever  will  be,  saved  without  it :  that  natural  ability, 


382  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

although  it  avails  to  create  obligation  and  justify  punish- 
ment, never  did,  and  never  will,  avail  to  repentance ;  that 
the  difficulty  in  the  way  of  the  sinner's  conversion  "  de- 
mands as  really  and  certainly  the  interposition  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  if  the  inability  were  natural ;"  that  the  exertion 
of  the  saving  influence  "  does  not  depend  on  the  will  of 
the  sinner,"  nor  does  the  free  will  of  the  sinner  ever  re- 
sist it  when  exerted ;  but  all  those  on  whose  hearts  it 
operates  "  are  certainly,  infallibly,  and  efficaciously  re- 
generated, and  in  fact  believe ;"  and  that  all  the  subjects 
of  this  influence  were  chosen  to  be  the  subjects  of  it  be- 
fore the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  "  not  on  the  ground 
of  repentance,  or  faith,  or  good  works  foreseen."  Of 
course,  if  any  are  not  regenerated,  it  is  not  because  they 
have  resisted  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  which  are  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  salvation  ;  but  because  those  influ- 
ences were  never  brought  to  bear  upon  them — because 
they  were  not  chosen  to  this  distinction  from  all  eternity. 
We  hope  the  authors  and  advocates  of  this  creed  will 
hereafter  pay  some  regard  to  consistency,  and  not  charge 
upon  the  will  of  the  sinner  the  fact  that  he  is  not  re- 
generated.* 

*  The  writer  or  writers  of  this  article  profess  to  consider  these 
doctrines  among  the  "  principal  fundamental  doctrines  on  which  it 
is  supposed  all  Christians  are  substantially  agreed."  This  is  truly 
astonishing.  There  has  lately  been  (as  the  reader  has  already  been 
informed)  a  considerable  clamour  raised  by  certain  sanguine,  but 
somewhat  disappointed  sectarista,  against  sectarianism.  The  sen- 
timent has  been  inculcated  that  public  religious  instruction  should 
be  confined  to  tenets  in  which  all  Christians  are  agreed.  Those  in 
which  they  differ  have  been  styled  "sectarian  Christianity,"  in  con- 
tradistinction to  "  substantial  Christianity."  The  promulgators  of 
this  sentiment  have  been  verj'  shy  about  stating  the  doctrines  in 
which  it  is  supposed  all  Christians  are  agreed ;  for  they  are  not 
without  the  sagacity  to  perceive  that  if  they  undertake  this,  and  do 
it  fairly,  they  will  exclude  from  public  teaching  many  important  doc- 


\EW  DIVIN'ITV CALVINISM.  383 

But  this  doctrine  of  moral  inability  or  disinclination,  re- 
mediable only  by  the  special  and  partially  vouchsafed 
influences  of  the  Spirit,  is  not  the  only  security  for  the 
Calvinism  of  the  New  School.     The  definitions  wliich  are 


trines,  or  deny  to  large  sects  the  right  to  be  called  Christians.— 
Occasionally,  however,  we  have  sermons  and  statements  put  forth, 
containing,  professedly,  nothing  but  what  all  Christians  can  unite 
in.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Skinner,  who  is  terrible  in  his  philippics  against 
sectarianism,  has  recently  published  a  book  of  sermons,  of  consider- 
able merit,  entitled  "Religion  of  the  Bible."  In  his  preface  he  says, 
"  It  is  earnestly  hoped  that,  in  perusing  this  book,  he  [the  reader] 
will  not  once  find  his  thoughts  conversant  with  a  subject  which  he 
himself  will  regard  as  a  matter  of  doubtful  disputation,  or  as  among 
the  uncertainties  of  religion,  or  as  pertaining  to  those  peculiarities, 
whether  of  doctrine,  practice,  or  spirit,  which  have  given  Christians 
different  names,  and  have  divided  them  into  contending  schools  and 
sects."  Some  of  his  friends,  relying,  we  suppose,  on  his  word,  have 
echoed  this  eulogy.  We  read  the  book  with  eagerness,  not  a  little 
anxious  to  see  whether  he  could  keep  clear  of  disputed  points  ;  and 
were  not  disappointed  in  finding  doctrines  eminently  Calvinistic — 
such  as  are  disputed  and  rejected  by  the  great  body  of  Arminian 
Christians.  He  affirms,  and  represents  the  Saviour  as  defending, 
the  Calvinistic  view  respecting  "  God's  sovereignty."  It  is  fully 
developed  in  these  words :  "  If  God  be  influenced  at  all  by  what 
men  themselves,  in  a  moral  respect,  are  or  do,  he  would  be  in- 
fluenced,  not  to  save,  but  to  destroy  them,"  p.  3'20.  Here  is  an 
explicit  avowal  of  the  sentiment,  that  God  is  not  influenced  at  all,  in 
saving  men,  by  what  they,  in  a  moral  respect,  are  or  do ;  or,  in 
other  words,  that  he  selects  those  whom  he  chooses  to  save  from 
among  the  ungodly  and  impenitent,  without  any  regard  to  repent, 
ance  or  faith  foreseen,  as  a  reason  for  their  selection,  while  he  re- 
jects others,  who,  so  far  as  moral  character  is  concerned,  are  as 
eligible  to  salvation  as  those  whom  he  determines  to  save.  He 
closes  this  sermon  by  sajing  that,  if  there  be  any  mystery  in  this 
doctrine,  it  is  the  mystery  not  of  the  subject,  but  of  a  perverse 
and  unteachable  heart." 

The  sermon  on  "  Restraints  on  Divine  Influence"  is  eminently 
warlike  in  its  attitudes.  If  it  does  not  discuss  disputed  doctrines,  it 
deals  out  censures  unsparingly  on  "schools  and  sects,"  on  "minis. 


384  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM, 

given  of  the  ability  which  the  sinner  is  declared  to  pos- 
sess are  sufficient  to  preserve  that  system  inviolate,  with- 
out any  other  guardianship.  Let  them  assert,  Avith  the 
utmost  fulness  of  expression,  that   every  sinner  is  fully 


ters,"  '•  particular  churches,"  and  on  "  peculiarities  of  practice  and 
spirit."  He  finds  some  ministers  "  under  the  sway  of  the  spirit  of 
sect,"  who  would  fain  draw  down  fire  from  heaven  to  burn  up 
those  who  do  not  fall  in  and  build  with  them  ;"  and  others  who, 
"labouring  hard  in  angry  controversy,  suppose  nothing  to  be  a 
more  worthy  object  of  pursuit  than  the  confutation  of  speculative 
errors  on  all  points  of  divinity ;"  and  others,  ministers  of  evangeli- 
cal denominations,  who,  although  they  are  not  found  among  the  open 
opposers  of  revivals,  are  induced  by  "pecuUar  circumstances  of  ex- 
pediency" to  "  repress  positive  expressions  of  aversion."  Among 
churches  he  finds  those  who,  "  deeming  no  spirit  so  excellent  as  zeal 
for  orthodoxy,  are  afraid  of  the  influence  of  revivals  on  their  stand- 
ards of  faith,  and  so  hold  them  in  suspicion,  if  not  in  worse  esteem  ;" 
and  "  others"  who,  "  on  the  contrary,  overpowered  by  the  spirit  of 
party,  long  for  nothing  so  much  as  an  increase  of  numbers,  and  set 
themselves  against  true  revivals  by  contrivances  designed  to  awa- 
ken their  assemblies  into  a  great  animal  excitement,  as  a  fruitful 
means  of  proselytism."  It  is  certainly  encouraging  to  think  that 
there  is  one  minister,  and  one  church  in  the  land,  free  from  these 
unseemly  characteristics. 

Now  we  do  not  care  to  decide  whether  these  censures  are  merited 
or  not,  nor  do  we  object  to  this  author's  advancing  his  own  peculiar 
doctrines,  or  wielding  the  lash  of  censure  on  the  backs  of  ministers 
or  churches  that  do  not  come  up  to  his  standard ;  but  we  object  to 
his  claiming  to  have  advanced  no  doctrines  but  what  all  Christians 
believe,  and  arrogating  to  himself  the  credit  of  a  liberality  and  free- 
dom  from  sectarianism  of  which  others  are  represented  as  so  deplo- 
rably  destitute. 

What  can  all  this  mean  ?  Are  these  great  and  learned  men  real- 
ly ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  doctrines  they  set  forth  as  received 
by  all  Christians  are  warmly  disputed  among  Christians  ?  Or  do 
they  hope  to  spread  Calvinism,  by  making  the  impression  on  the 
minds  of  those  who  know  no  better,  that  it  is  undisputed  truth  ? 
Or  do  they  deny  the  character  of  Christians  to  all  who  reject  these 
doctrines  ? 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  385 

able  to  comply,  at  any  moment,  with  the  claims  of  the 
gospel — let  them  argue  vehemently  in  favour  of  the  asser- 
tion— let  them  insist  upon  it  that  the  opposite  opinion 
represents  Jehovah  as  a  tyrant — let  them,  on  this  ground, 
offer  salvation  to  all,  and  urge  all  to  come  to  Christ,  with 
all  the  eloquence  of  persuasion — let  it  be  imagined,  as  it 
is  by  many  of  their  hearers,  that  they  are  genuine  Armini- 
ans,  and  that  Calvinism  is  the  object  of  their  righteous 
abhorrence  ;  and  all  this  time  Calvinism  dwells  securely, 
and  smiles  at  the  misapprehensions  of  the  multitude. 
This  ability  consists  in  nothing  more  than  the  possession 
of  constitutional  faculties,  which  may  be  possessed  in  the 
absence  of  the  power  that  is  absolutely  necessary  to  exer- 
cise them  in  the  way  required. 

Mr.  Hintoh  has  adopted  a  definition  of  "  power"  differ- 
ent from  the  above,  in  the  management  of  Avhich  he  has 
shown  not  a  little  ingenuity.  Instead  of  taking  the  term 
in  its  ordinary  and  strictly  proper  sense,  he  defines  it  to 
consist  in  "  the  possession  of  means,"  He  then  gives 
such  illustrations  of  his  definition,  as  seem  to  make  the 
possession  of  means  equal  to  the  possession  of  -power. 
But  when  he  comes  to  inquire  what  are  the  means  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  he  takes  care  to  leave  out  of  liis  enu- 
meration something  which  he  elsewhere  assures  us  is 
absolutely  necessary — the  Holy  Spirit's  influences.  Hence. 
the  ability  which  he  ascribes  to  the  sinner  is,  after  all, 
an  ability  which  is  utterly  and  inevitably  unavailing. 

17 


386  NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM. 

CHAPTER  XXXV. 

CALVINISM     CONTINUED. 

Besides  these  subtilties  on  ability,  certain  distinctions 
on  the  atonement  have  been  resorted  to,  for  the  same  pur- 
pose. There  is  so  obvious  an  inconsistency  in  offering 
salvation  to  all,  on  the  supposition  that  Christ  did  not  die 
for  all,  that  the  man  who  ventures  to  connect  these  in  the 
pulpit  is  more  likely  to  excite  contempt  than  to  commend 
himself  to  the  conscience.  This  is  felt  by  Calvinists. 
Hence  they  distinguish  between  the  atonement  and  the 
application  of  it — between  atonement  and  redemption — be- 
tween the  sujfficiency  of  the  atonement  and  its  ejficicncy. 

Two  or  three  examples  may  suffice.  The  first  we  shall 
select  from  Mr.  Payne's  Lectures  on  Divine  Sovereignty, 
referred  to  at  the  commencement  of  our  discussions. 
He  affirms  that  "  while,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Saviour  can- 
not have  intended  to  secure  the  salvation  of  all  men  by 
the  act  of  offering  himself  up  a  sacrifice  for  sin  ;  yet  that 
the  sacrifice  must,  on  the  one  hand,  have  been  in  itself 
adequate  to  the  salvation  of  all  men,  so  as  to  become  a 
suitable  foundation  for  the  general  and  unlimited  calls  of 
the  gospel.  There  is  a  broad  line  of  distinction  between 
the  sufficiency  of  the  atonement  of  Christ  and  its  efiiciency, 
or  rather,  as  I  would  say,  the  sovereign  purpose  of  the 
sacred  three,  in  reference  to  its  efficiency ;  that  is,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  exertion  of  that  holy  influence  upon  the  minds 
of  men,  which  secures  to  them  the  enjoyment  of  the 
blessings  which  flow  through  the  channel  of  the  atone- 
ment. It  may  be  true  (whether  it  is  or  not  we  shall  in- 
quire presently,  my  present  object  is  merely  to  illustrate 
the  difference  between  the  two  things)  that  Jehovah  did 
not  intend  to  put  forth  that  influence  which  would  render 
the  atonement  the  means  of  securing  the  salvation  of  all 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  387 

men ;  though,  as  it  was  to  become  the  basis  of  moral 
government,  it  was  essential  that  it  should  be  of  infinite 
worth,  and  so  in  itself  adequate  to  the  salvation  of  all 
men.  This  I  have  long  regarded  as  the  true  state  of  the 
case." — p.  209. 

Again,  "  If  the  question  be  '  Did  Christ  die  with  the  de- 
sign of  laying  a  foundation  of  salvation  for  all  men,  or  for 
some  men  V  I  answer,  that,  in  this  sense,  he  died  for  all 
men.  If  the  question  be  '  Did  he  die  with  the  design  of 
rendering  the  means  effectual  to  the  salvation  of  all  men, 
or  of  some  men  V  I  answer,  that,  in  this  sense,  he  died 
for  some  men  only." 

"  I  believe  in  the  unlimited,  universal,  infinite  suffi- 
ciency of  the  atonement  of  Christ — I  believe  it  was  the 
intention  of  God,  as  the  moral  Governor,  in  giving  his  Son 
as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  to  provide  a  general  remedy  com- 
mensurate with  the  disease.  I  believe,  on  the  other  hand, 
in  the  limited  application  of  the  atonement.  I  believe  it 
was  the  intention  of  God,  as  a  sovereign,  to  render  the 
remedy  effectual,  by  special  and  sovereign  influence,  in 
the  case  of  certain  individuals  only  who  are  affected  with 
the  general  disease,  so  that  the  intention  of  God  as  a 
sovereign,  and  as  a  ruler,  in  reference  to  the  atonement, 
is  different,  the  one  being  general,  the  other  particular."— 
Ihid. 

We  have  the  sentiments  of  Dr.  Cox,  on  this  subject,  in 
the  appendix  to  his  Avork  on  Quakerism.  He  remarks, 
"  In  modern  technology  (which  I  approve)  they  only  are 
said  to  be  redeemed  who  are  actually  accepted  in  Christ : 
for  all,  atonement  is  made  ;  to  all,  it  is  offered ;  the  Spirit 
striving  through  the  truth  as  extensively  as  the  sufficiency 
and  applicability  of  the  atonement  are  extensive.  Still, 
to  accept  the  offer  and  correspond  with  the  offerer,  is,  in. 
the  very  nature  of  things,  the  only  way  to  be  saved. 
Are  all  men  saved  ?     Yes — if  all  repent  and  believe  the 


3,88  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

gospel!  Do  they  all  this?  He  that  believes  men  are 
saved  in  sin,  or  that  all  men  renounce  it,  must  have  very- 
strong  faith !  We,  however,  do  not  believe  that  the  atone- 
ment was  indefinite,  in  the  sense  of  the  Remonstrants  of 
Holland,  or  any  other  Arminians.  God  had  a  design  in 
making  it,  which  no  event  could  frustrate.  Christ  eter- 
nally designed  the  salvation  of  the  elect ;  and  for  these, 
in  this  sense  exclusively,  he  gave  his  precious  life.  But 
this  makes  not  the  atonement  less  full,  or  alters  its  nature 
at  all."— p.  667. 

The  reader  will  readily  perceive,  that,  notwithstanding 
all  that  is  said  in  these  passages  of  a  "  full,"  "  unlimited," 
*'  universal"  atonement,  the  writers  hold  most  tenaciously 
to  the  great  Calvinistic  principle,  which  limits  the  provi- 
sion for  salvation  to  a  definite  and  favoured  number.  The 
atonement  was  adequate  to  the  salvation  of  all  men.  It 
justifies  the  general  and  unlimited  calls  of  the  gospel. 
But  it  is  not  indefinite,  in  the  sense  in  which  Arminians 
understand  it,  which,  we  apprehend,  is  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  generally  understood.  Christ  eternally  designed  the 
salvation  of  the  elect ;  and  for  them,  in  this  sense  exclu- 
sively, (in  the  sense  of  designing  their  salvation,)  he 
gave  his  precious  life.  "  The  Saviour  cannot  have  intend- 
ed to  secure  the  salvation  of  all  men,"  &c.  "  It  was  the 
intention  of  God  to  render  the  remedy  effectual  in  the  ease 
of  certain  individuals  only."  "  The  atonement  was  for  all, 
but  the  elect  only  are  said  to  be  redeemed." 

It  may  serve  to  illustrate  more  vividly  and  impressively 
the  effect  of  these  distinctions,  if  we  furnish  an  example 
of  the  manner  in  which  they  are  applied, — first,  for  the 
purpose  of  preaching  a  free  salvation,  and  secondly,  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  the  system  of  Calvinism. 

In  Mr.  Barnes'  sermon,  on  "  The  Way  of  Salvation," 
there  is  a  most  eloquent  assertion  of  the  doctrine,  that 
salvation  is  free  for,  and  sincerely  oflfered  to  all.     The 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  389 

passage  alluded  to,  is  in  the  style  of  the  most  high-toned 
and  uncompromising  Arminianism.     He  writes  : — 

"  The  atonement  was  for  all  men.  It  was  an  offering 
made  for  the  race.  It  had  not  respect  so  much  to  indivi- 
duals, as  to  the  law  and  perfections  of  God.  It  was  an 
opening  of  the  way  for  pardon — a  making  forgiveness 
consistent — a  preserving  of  the  truth — a  magnifying  of 
the  law,  and  had  no  particular  reference  to  any  class  of 
men.  We  judge  that  He  died  for  all ;  He  tasted  death 
for  every  man.  He  is  the  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the 
world.  He  came,  that  whosoever  would  believe  on  Him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life. 

"  The  full  benefit  of  the  atonement  is  offered  t;o  all  nien. 
In  perfect  sincerity  God  makes  the  offer.  He  has  com- 
missioned his  servants  to  go  and  preach  the  gospel — that 
is,  the  good  news  that  salvation  is  provided  for  them — to 
every  creature.  He  that  does  not  this  ;  that  goes  to  offer 
the  gospel  to  a  part  only ;  to  elect  persons  only ;  or,  that 
supposes  that  God  offers  the  gospel  only  to  a  certain  por- 
tion of  mankind,  violates  his  commission,  practically 
charges  God  with  insincerity,  makes  himself '  wise  above 
what  is  written,'  and  brings  great  reproach  on  the  holy 
cause  of  redemption.  The  offer  of  salvation  is  not  made 
by  man,  but  by  God.  It  is  Ms  commission ;  and  it  is  his 
solemn  charge,  that  the  sincere  offer  of  Heaven  should  be 
made  to  every  creature.  That  all  creatures  have  not 
heard  it ;  that  every  heathen  man,  every  Indian,  African, 
and  Islander,  have  not  heard  it,  has  been  owing  to  the  un- 
faithfulness of  ministers — to  the  avarice  of  the  church — to 
the  want  of  proper  zeal  among  Christians,  and  not  to  the 
command  of  God,  or  any  want  of  fulness  in  the  atone- 
ment. 

"  I  assume  the  free  and  full  offer  of  the  gospel  to  all 
men,  to  be  one  of  those  cardinal  points  of  the  system  by 
which  I  guage  all  my,  other  views  of  truth.     It  is,  in  my 


390  NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

view,  a  corner  stone  of  the  whole  edifice  ;  that  which 
makes  it  so  glorious  to  God,  and  so  full  of  good  will  to 
men.  I  hold  no  doctrines,  and,  by  the  grace  of  God,  never 
can  hold  any  which  will  be  in  my  view  inconsistent  with 
the  free  and  full  offer  of  the  gospel  to  all  men ;  or  which 
will  bind  my  hands,  or  palsy  my  tongue,  or  freeze  my 
heart,  when  I  stand  before  sinners  to  tell  them  of  a  dying 
Saviour.  I  stand  as  the  messenger  of  God,  with  the  as- 
surance, that  all  that  will  may  be  saved ;  that  the  atone- 
ment was  full  and  free  ;  and  that  if  any  perish,  it  will  be 
because  they  choose  to  die,  and  not  because  they  are 
straitened  in  God.  I  have  no  fellow-feeling  for  any  other 
gospel ;  I  have  no  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  extend  to 
any  scheme  that  does  not  say  that  God  sincerely  offers  all 
the  bliss  of  heaven  to  every  wandering  child  of  Adam, — 
be  he  a  CafTrarian,  a  Hindoo,  a  man  of  China,  or  a  Lap- 
lander ;  a  beggar  or  a  king,  a  rich  man,  a  learned  man,  a 
moral  man,  or  an  abandoned  wretch  of  Christian  climes. 

"  The  scheme  of  salvation  I  regard  as  offered  to  the 
world,  as  free  as  the  light  of  heaven,  or  the  rains  that  burst 
upon  the  mountains,  or  the  full  swelling  of  broad  rivers 
and  streams,  or  the  heavings  of  the  deep.  And  though 
millions  do  not  receive  it — though  in  regard  to  them  the 
benefits  of  the  plan  are  lost,  and  to  them,  in  a  certain 
sense,  the  plan  may  be  said  to  be  in  vain,  yet  I  see  in 
this  the  hand  of  the  same  God  that  pours  the  rays  of  noon- 
day on  barren  sands,  and  genial  showers  on  desert  rocks, 
and  gives  life,  bubbling  springs,  and  flowers,  where  no 
man  is,  to  our  eyes,  yet  not  to  his,  in  vain.  So  is  the  offer 
of  eternal  life,  to  every  man  here,  to  every  man  every- 
where, sincere  and  full — an  offer  that,  though  it  may  pro- 
duce no  emotions  in  the  sinner's  bosom  here,  would  send 
a  thrill  of  joy  through  all  the  panting  bosoms  of  the  suffer- 
ing damned." 

Such  is  the  manner  in  which  this  eloquent  preacher 


NEW   DIVINITY CALVINISM.  391 

sometimes  takes  occasion  to  assert  the  fulness  and  free- 
ness  of  the  atonement,  and  the  universality  and  sincerity 
of  the  gospel  offers  of  eternal  salvation.  This  passage, 
taken  alone,  is  sufficient  to  make  the  heart  of  the  Chris- 
tian or  the  penitent  leap  within  him.  And  who  that  is 
unacquainted  with  the  turnings,  and  windings,  and  diversi- 
fied subterfuges  of  New  Divinity,  would  suppose,  for  a 
moment,  that  the  author  of  these  glowing  paragraphs  is  a 
firm  believer  in  the  Calvinistic  doctrines  respecting  pre- 
destination and  election  ?  He  not  only  affirms  that  salva- 
tion is  provided  for,  and  offered  to,  every  creature,  but 
denounces  with  great  severity  the  opposite  doctrines.  If 
an  Arminian  were  disposed  to  speak  in  terms  severely 
condemnatory  of  Calvinism,  it  would  be  difficult  for  him 
to  find  language  better  suited  to  his  purpose  than  that  used 
by  Mr.  B.  This  sermon  gave  dissatisfaction  to  some  of 
his  brethren,  as  might  have  been  expected,  and  he  was 
put  on  the  defence  of  his  orthodoxy.  Let  us  see  how  he 
proceeds.  In  his  answer  to  the  protest  against  his  ser- 
mon, he  makes  the  following  explanations. 

"  In  denying  that  it  was  in  itself  efficacious,  it  was  meant 
to  affirm  that  the  atonement  was  something  which  could 
be  contemplated  apart  from  the  purpose  to  apply  it ;  that 
it  had  a  dignity  and  value  which  could  not  be  adequately 
measured  by  its  actual  application  ;  that  it  was  in  its  na- 
ture applicable  to  any  number  of  men ;  that  if  God  had 
chosen  to  apply  it  to  all  the  loorld,  or  to  have  greatly  in- 
creased the  number  of  the  elect,  the  Redeemer  would  not 
have  been  required  to  increase,  renew,  or  prolong  his  suf- 
ferings. Its  actual  application  to  man  was  supposed  to  be 
the  result  of  the  good  pleasure  of  God.  It  was  supposed 
that  there  was  a  covenant  transaction  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  assuring  him  that  he  should  see  of  the  travail 
of  his  soul,  and  should  be  satisfied,  and  that  his  people 
should  be  willing  in  the  day  of  his  power.    It  was  not  sup- 


392  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

posed  that  the  exact  amount  of  this  number  was  fixed  by 
the  nature  of  the  atonement,  but  depended  on  the  mercy 
and  promise  of  God. 

"  To  the  Redeemer's  sufferings  and  death,  contemplated 
apart  from  the  actual  purpose  to  apply  his  merits,  I  chose, 
in  accordance  Avith  many  writers,  to  apply  the  word  atone- 
ment. The  actual  application  of  his  work,  I  supposed, 
might  be  appropriately  expressed  by  the  word  redemption. 
It  was  not  thought  that  this  was  a  departure  from  Scripture 
usage.  The  word  atonement  occurs  but  once  as  applica- 
ble to  the  death  of  Christ  in  the  New  Testament ;  the 
word  redemption  often,  and  this  latter  word  it  is  supposed 
always  with  reference  to  the  purpose  to  apply  it.  It  did 
not  seem  then  to  be  a  gross  violation  of  Scripture  usage, 
to  describe  by  the  word  atonement  a  thing  which  may  and 
must  be  contemplated — the  highest  and  best  gift  of  God — 
the  sufferer,  the  bleeding  victim,  the  atoning  sacrifice  :  still 
less  can  it  be  seen  how  this  usage  can  be  construed  into 
an  offence  against  the  Confession  of  Faith.  In  all  our 
standards  of  doctrine  the  word  atonement  never  occurs. 
Nor  is  it  the  purpose  of  the  standards  to  decide  the  thing 
which  I  Avished  to  express  by  the  word — the  original  in- 
dependent applicability  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  The 
Confession  of  Faith,  states  only  its  application ;  for  that  it 
uses  the  word  redemption.  It  afllirms  of  that,  that  it  is 
limited  and  was  intended  to  be  limited.  That  the  sermon 
never  denied." — Defence,  p.  69. 

The  whole  secret  of  this  matter  is  now  laid  open.  The 
word  atonement,  it  is  said,  occurs  but  once  in  the  New 
Testament  as  applicable  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  It 
represents  the  original  independent  applicability  of  the  suf- 
ferings of  Christ.  It  was  in  its  nature  applicable  to  anynum 
ber  of  men,  and  if  God  had  chpsen  greatly  to  increase  the 
number  of  the  elect,  no  additional  suffering  on  the  part  of 
Christ  would  have  been  requisite.  But  there  is  a  distinction 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  39:^ 

between  the  atonement  and  the  application  of  it.  The  atone  - 
ment  without  the  application  is  not  adequate  to  the  salvation 
of  any  one  ;  the  application  is  absolutely  necessary.  It  is 
the  redemption  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  and  it  would  be 
infidelity  itself  to  suppose  that  a  sinner  can  be  saved  whom 
Christ  has  not  redeemed.  But  the  application  of  the 
atonement,  or  the  redemption,  is  by  no  means  coextensive 
with  the  atonement.  It  is  determined  by  the  good  plea- 
sure of  God,  and  by  a  covenant  transaction  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  in  which  the  exact  number  to  whom 
it  is  applied  is  fixed.  It  is  limited  to  the  elect.  Mr.  B. 
claims  to  agree  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  on  this  sub  • 
ject.  The  Confession  of  Faith  says  nothing  about  atone- 
ment, it  states  only  its  application.  "  For  that  it  uses  the 
word  redemption.  It  affirms  of  that,  that  it  is  limited,  and  was 
intended  to  be  limited.     That  the  sermon  never  denied." 

This  distinction,  and  the  doctrine  based  upon  it,  are  thus 
stated  in  his  Introduction  to  Butler's  Analogy.  "  But  still 
there  are  two  points  in  the  atonement  so  well  substan- 
tiated, and  yet  so  apparently  contradictory,  that  it  becomes 
an  interesting  inquiry,  whether  both  positions  can  find  an 
analogy  in  the  course  of  events.  The  first  is,  that  the 
atonement  was  originally  applicable  to  all  men — that  it 
was  not  limited  by  its  nature  to  any  class  of  men,  or  any 
particular  individuals — that  it  was  an  offering  made  for 
the  race,  and  is,  when  made,  in  the  widest  and  fullest 
sense,  the  property  of  man  ;  and  the  second  is,  that  it  is 
actually  applied  to  only  a  portion  of  the  race,  and  that  it 
was  the  purpose  of  God  that  it  should  be  so  applied." 

He  then  attempts  an  analogy  between  these  doctrines 
and  the  provisions  of  nature,  in  the  course  of  which  he 
remarks,  "  We  defy  the  most  acute  defender  of  the  doc- 
trine of  a  limited  atonement,  to  produce  an  instance  in  the 
provisions  of  God  where  there  was  a  designed  limitation 
of  the  thing."  Again  :  "  But  still  it  was  the  purpose — the 
17* 


394  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

decree  of  God,  that  this  atonement  should  be  actually  ap- 
plied to  but  a  part — we  believe  ultimately  a  large  part  of 
the  human  family.  By  this  we  mean  that  it  is  in  fact  so 
applied,  and  that  this  fact  is  the  expression  of  the  purpose 
or  decree  of  God." 

Mr.  B.  here  gives  an  example  of  the  limitation  Avhich  he 
so  confidently  denies.  For  if  that  provision  is  not  limited, 
the  benefits  of  which  are  applied,  by  the  decree  of  God,  to 
but  a  part  of  mankind,  we  have  yet  to  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  term. 

It  is  in  immediate  connection  with  the  foregoing  pas- 
sage that  he  makes  this  remark,  to  which  the  attention  of 
the  reader  has  already  been  called.  "  We  interpret  the 
decrees  of  God,  so  far  as  we  can  do  it,  hy  facts ;  and  we 
say  that  the  actual  result,  by  whatever  means  brought 
about,  is  the  expression  of  the  design  of  God."  So  that  if 
any  one  is  damned,  the  "  result"  proves  that  it  was  the 
"  decree"  or  "  design"  of  God,  not  only  that  the  atonement 
should  not  be  applied  in  his  case,  but  that  damnation 
should  be  his  eternal  lot,  notwithstanding  all  that  might  be 
done,  professedly,  for  his  salvation. 

From  these  quotations  it  appears  that  Mr.  B.  considers 
the  full,  free,  and  sincere  offer  of  salvation — of  all  the  bliss 
of  heaven — to  every  creature  perfectly  compatible  with  the 
supposed  fact  that  the  atonement,  the  application  of  which 
is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  a  sinner,  is  ap- 
plied to  only  a  part  of  mankind,  and  that  but  a  part  of  them 
are  redeemed  :  so  that  while  it  would  bind  his  hands,  and 
palsy  his  tongue,  and  freeze  his  heart,  to  be  required  to  be- 
lieve and  preach  a  limited  atonement,  his  hands  are  per- 
fectly free,  and  his  tongue  is  as  the  pen  of  a  ready  writer, 
and  his  heart  warm  when  he  comes  to  preach  a  dying  Sa- 
viour to  sinners  whom  that  Saviour  never  redeemed,  to 
whom  the  atonement  is  destined  by  the  decree  of  God 
never  to  be  applied,  whose  damnation  was  decreed  from 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  395 

eternity,  and  who,  consequently,  have  no  more  opportunity 
of  salvation  than  the  devils  in  hell. 

We  confess  that  if  this  be  Mr.  B.'s  commission,  we  have 
not  a  very  exalted  opinion  of  it  ;  and  we  must  go  else- 
where than  to  his  theory  for  a  satisfactory  illustration  of 
the  sincerity  of  God. 

Mr.  B.  anticipates  an  objection  to  his  doctrine  of  limited 
redemption.  "  But  it  is  still  said  that  it  is  unreasonable 
for  men  to  suffer  in  consequence  of  not  being  put  in  pos- 
' session  of  the  universal  atonement ;  and  that  Christianity 
affirms  there  is  no  hope  of  salvation  but  in  the  Son  of  God. 
So  it  does.  But  the  affirmation  is  not  that  men  are  guilty 
for  not  being  acquainted  with  that  scheme,  but  that  they 
lie  under  the  curses  of  the  antecedent  state  before  mentioned, 
from  which  Christianity  came  to  deliver." — p.  45. 

According  to  this,  sinners  are  not  condemned  for  failing 
to  avail  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  salvation,  but  for 
the  antecedent  guilt  wldch  renders  the  means  of  salvation 
necessary. 

It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  this  argument  does  not 
touch  the  question  of  the  sincerity  of  God  in  ottering  sal- 
vation to  those  Avhose  damnation  he  has  decreed.  It  is 
designed  to  vindicate  his  justice  in  withholding  what  is  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  salvation.  We  care  not  to  dispute 
this  point  at  present.  Admitting,  then,  for  argument's  sake, 
that  the  justice  of  God  is  unimpeachable,  we  still  ask, 
can  he  sincerely  offer  salvation  to  those  from  whom  he 
withholds,  in  pursuance  of  his  eternal  decree,  what  is  indis- 
pensable to  their  salvation  ?  This  is  the  point  on  which 
we  would  fix  attention.  Suppose  that  a  large  number  of 
the  subjects  of  an  earthly  sovereignty  incur  the  penalty  of 
death.  Their  sovereign  feels  the  necessity  of  enforcing 
the  claims  of  government,  and  yet  is  reluctant  to  cut  off  so 
many  of  his  subjects.  He  devises  a  scheme  by  which  he 
hinks  the  authority  of  government  can  be  sustained,  and 


396  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

the  rebels  pardoned.  This  scheme  is  equally  applicable 
to  all ;  but,  as  it  is  supposed  that  no  injustice  would  be 
done  to  any  by  the  execution  of  the  penalty,  he  concludes 
to  apply  it  to  a  certain  number  only,  selecting  the  persons 
to  be  saved.  So  far,  we  allow,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
that  all  is  right.  But  suppose  that  this  sovereign  were  to 
commission  his  ministers  to  go  and  announce  to  these 
rebels  the  plan  of  mercy,  and  offer  pardon  to  them  indis- 
criminately, when  it  was  his  settled  purpose,  known  to  his 
messengers,  that  the  scheme  was  intended  to  be  made 
available  only  to  a  part  of  their  number — suppose  he  were 
to  hold  those  messengers  punishable,  as  violaters  of  their 
commission,  in  case  they  should  intimate  that  pardon  was 
not  equally  the  privilege  of  all — would  that  sovereign  be 
lauded  for  his  sincerity?  Would  that  governor  be  deemed 
sincere  who  employs  men  to  excite  hopes  of  pardon  in 
the  breasts  of  criminals  whom  he  has  predetermined  shall 
be  executed  ?  And  yet  this  is  the  very  course  which  New 
Divinity  ascribes  to  the  God  of  heaven.  We  would  fain 
vindicate  Him  from  the  praise  with  which  it  dishonours 
him.  We  have  no  partiality  for  the  Calvinism  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  but  we  like  it  much 
better  than  New  Divinity.  It  does  not  deceive  by  flou- 
rishes about  a  general  atonement,  while  it  holds  to  a 
limited  redemption. 

This  distinction  between  the  atonement  and  its  applica- 
tion, apart  from  the  use  to  which  it  is  applied,  is,  in  our 
estimation,  wholly  untenable.  Suffering  alone  does  not 
constitute  atonement.  It  must  be  suffering  for  that  par- 
ticular purpose.  It  must  be  suffering  applied.  The  idea 
of  atonement  includes,  essentially,  the  idea  of  its  applica- 
tion. If  there  are  those  to  whom  the  sufl'erings  of  Christ 
are  not  applied  for  the  purpose  of  atonement,  there  are 
those  for  whom  no  atonement  is  made,  whatever  may  be 
the  case  as  to  the  mere  applicability  of  his  sufferings. 


NEW  DIVINITY — CALVINISM.  397 

Those  who  adhere  to  this  distinction,  will  find  them- 
selves involved  in  this  difficulty — either  none  of  the  great 
and  varied  blessings  which  are  conferred  on  the  ungodly, 
come  to  them  through  the  atonement,  or  they  receive  those 
blessings  in  consequence  of  an  atonement  that  has  never 
been  applied  to  them ;  or  the  atonement  is,  and  is  not 
applied  to  them,  at  the  same  time. 

The  state  of  the  case  is  this — it  is  not  the  application 
of  the  atonement  that  is  needed,  to  make  the  sinner  a 
Christian,  but  the  application  of  certain  additional  benefits 
procured  by  the  atonement,  the  application  of  which  de- 
pends upon  our  repentance  and  faith ;  such  as  pardon, 
adoption,  and  regenerating  influences.  The  atonement 
itself  is  applied  to  all. 

The  distinction  between  atonement  and  redemption  is 
also  unwarrantable.  Redemption  includes  the  entire  con- 
nection between  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  our  salvation. 
The  great  transactions  of  mercy  which  are  represented 
by  the  word  atonement  are  far  more  frequently  represented 
by  the  word  redemption.  How,  we  ask,  is  atonement 
effected  ?  By  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  And  are  we  not 
redeemed  by  the  same  means  ?  "  Ye  are  not  redeemed 
with  corruptible  things,  such  as  silver  and  gold,  but  with 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  liamb  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world." 

The  New  School  men  are  great  sticklers  for  the  doc- 
trine of  free  agency.  One  might  suppose,  from  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  assert  and  contend  for  it,  that  they  were 
specially  set  for  its  defence.  But  the  freedom  they  as- 
cribe to  man  is  merely  nominal.  It  is  just  such  freedom 
as  they  can  reconcile  with  the  eternal  and  unalterable 
foreordination  of  every  action  and  event.  It  is  true,  there 
is  much  dispute  between  the  parties  in  the  Calvinistic 
churches  respecting  predestination ;  but  the  controversy 
relates  to  the  reasons  bv  which  Jehovah  was  influenced 


308  NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM. 

in  his  predeterminations,  and  to  the  manner  in  which  he 
brings  them  to  pass.  That  he  has,  for  some  reason,  fore- 
ordained, and  that  in  some  way  or  other  he  brings  to  pass, 
every  event,  they  alike  believe. 

The  means  by  which  they  attempt  to  reconcile  these 
hostile  tenets,  consist  in  plausible  definitions  of  the  terms 
employed.  But  no  matter  how  plentifully  they  use  the 
terms  which  convey  the  idea  of  freedom,  or  how  they  de- 
fine them,  the  freedom  of  the  human  mind,  according  to 
their  system,  is  nothing  more  than  the  freedom  of  the  dif- 
ferent parts  of  a  complicated  machine  to  act  according  to 
the  plan  on  which  it  is  constructed,  and  in  obedience  to 
the  impulses  of  the  steam,  or  water  power,  by  which  it  is 
put  in  motion.  Says  Mr.  Payne,  "  Upon  the  whole,  I 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  the  utmost  freedom, 
which  a  man  possesses,  or  can  possess,  is  liberty  to  act 
as  he  chooses."  We  should  consider  this  liberty  enough 
for  himian  beings,  and  a  little  too  much,  were  we  not  also 
required  to  believe  that  every  volition  of  the  human  mind 
is  predetermined  by  God  himself,  and  produced  by  means 
adapted  and  directed  by  him,  to  the  production  of  the  fore- 
appointed  result. 

So  far  as  we  are  able  to  gather  the  New  School  philo- 
sophy of  mental  operations,  and  their  connection  with 
divine  influence,  from  their  theological  writings,  it  appears 
ro  be  this :  the  volitions  are  determined  by  the  emotions,  the 
emotions  by  the  perceptions,  the  perceptions  by  surround 
ing  circumstances,  and  the  circumstances  by  God  himself. 
When  God  would  produce  a  certain  class  of  actions,  he 
surrounds  the  mind  with  the  corresponding  objects  ;  these 
produce  infallibly  the  required  perceptions  ;  the  percep- 
tions act  upon  the  susceptibilities  and  produce  the  corres- 
ponding emotions  ;  these  cause  the  foreordained  volitions ; 
and  the  volitions  are  succeeded  by  the  actions.  In  this 
way  is  God  supposed  to  bring  to  pass  both  good  and  evil 


NEW  DIVINITY CALVINISM.  399 

actions.  The  world  of  mankind  is  thus  reduced  to  a  vast 
theatre  of  automata,  consisting  of  corporeal  machines, 
each  including  a  spiritual  machine.  The  internal  ma- 
chinery is  acted  upon  by  external  influences,  entering  by 
certain  avenues  for  that  purpose.  The  internal  puts  the 
external  machinery  in  motion.  The  great  Author  of  na- 
ture acts  as  the  wire-worker,  who  manages  every  move- 
ment. Sitting  in  the  centre  of  his  vast  resources  of  influ- 
ence, he  touches  one  cord,  and  men  go  to  work  ploughing, 
sowing,  reaping,  making  books,  preaching  sermons,  or 
killing  each  other,  as  may  be  ordained.  He  touches  an- 
other, and  some  sit  in  grave  council  on  the  affairs  of  the 
automaton  community.  He  brings  to  bear  another  class 
of  influences,  and  they  proceed  to  dispute  whether  they 
are  free  pr  not,  and  to  play  oflf  all  the  subtilties  of  theo- 
logical controversy.  This  is  the  way  in  which,  accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  God  is  supposed  to  govern  mind  ;  and 
all  these  movements,  we  are  assured,  were  predetermined 
by  him  before  he  originated  this  wonderfiU  device. 


400  NEW  DIVINITY — CONCLUSION. 

CHAPTER  XXXVI. 

CONCLUSION. 

Whatever  differences  may  exist  between  he  Old  and 
New  School  parties,  it  is  certain  that  the  latter  have  not 
given  up  Calvinism.  They  hold  on  to  its  fundamental 
principles.  Their  system  is  liable  to  all  the  objections 
which  they  bring  against  that  of  the  Old  School.  It  has 
the  same  Antinomian  tendencies.  All  that  is  necessary  to 
make  them  apparent,  is  to  strip  it  of  its  inconsistent  ap- 
pendages. It  furnishes  the  same  encouragement  to  pre- 
sumption and  religious  inactivity,  by  teaching  that  the 
•  elect  were  chosen  to  salvation  before  they  Avere  born ; 
and  that  every  thing  necessary  to  their  salvation  was 
ordered  as  infallibly  as  the  event  itself.  It  renders  the 
case  of  the  non-elect  equally  hopeless,  and  extinguishes 
all  motive  for  effort  to  obtain  salvation,  by  the  doctrine 
that  God  withholds  from  them  influences  which  are  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  their  salvation.  And  when  I  hear  the 
advocates  of  this  system  address  the  sinner  in  the  language 
of  severe  warning  and  rebuke — when  I  hear  them  say  to 
him,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Barnes,  "  Go  home  this  day, 
impenitent  sinner,  if  God  spares  a  rebel  like  you  to  get 
home — go  home  and  reflect,  that  if  you  pass  through  this 
revival  unmoved  ;  if  you  resist  all  the  appeals  that  are 
made  to  you  from  day  to  day,  and  week  to  week,  the  pro- 
bability is,  that  you  will  be  damned,"  I  am  affected  with 
indegcribable  emotions.  If  I  were  to  address  my  feelings 
to  the  sinner,  to  whom  the  appeal  is  made,  it  would  be  in 
language  like  this  :  Sinner,  if  the  preacher's  creed  be  true, 
you  arc  elected  to  salvation  from  eternity,  or  excluded  by 
the  decree  of  Jehovah,  from  the  covenant  of  redemption, 
and  eternally  consigned  to  misery.     If  the  former,  you 


NEW  DIVINITY — CONCLUSION.  401 

are  safe :  if  the  latter,  there  is  no  hope  of  salvation  for 
you.  Your  passing  this  revival  unmoved  will  be  a  mat- 
ter of  course.  You  need  not  permit  yourself  to  be  flattered 
into  the  persuasion  that  there  is  salvation  for  you.  It  is 
true,  you  will  be  saved  if  you  repent  and  believe,  but  God 
has  decreed  to  withhold  from  you  the  influences  absolutely 
necessary  to  repentance  and  faith  :  and  hence  it  is  as  cer- 
tain as  that  God  lives,  that  you  never  will  repent  and  be- 
lieve. You  have,  it  is  said,  a  natural  ability ;  but  that  con- 
sists in  nothing  more  than  the  possession  of  your  consti- 
tutional faculties,  and  it  exists  in  connection  with  a  moral 
inability  or  disinclination  to  obey  God,  which  nothing  but 
his  special  grace  can  remove,  and  that  is  given  to  none 
but  the  elect.  You  are  told  that  Christ  died  for  all — that 
he  died  for  you,  and  that  he  offers  salvation  to  you ;  all 
this,  however,  can  be  of  no  avail,  except  to  increase  your 
damnation,  unless  that  atonement  be  applied  ;  but  its  appli- 
cation is  limited  : — Christ  has  died  for  you,  but  he  has  not 
redeemed  you.  You  are  called  free  agents,  and  are  blamed 
for  your  conduct,  but  He  who  has  fixed  beforehand  your 
destiny  has  also  decreed  all  your  actions,  so  that  you  have 
done  nothing,  will  do  nothing,  can  do  nothing,  but  what 
God  has  foreordained.  I  pity  you  ;  and  the  more  so  as  you 
are  so  insulted  by  those  who,  according  to  their  own  state- 
ments, serve  God  only  as  he  makes  them  willing,  and 
whom  you  would  equal  in  every  good  thing,  if  God  had 
only  shown  you  equal  favour. 

And  while  this  part  of  their  creed  developes  such  re- 
volting tendencies,  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  tends  to 
destroy  all  sense  of  dependance  on  the  Holy  Spirit.  We 
do  not  say  that  those  who  hold  the  doctrine  of  natural 
abiUty  expunge  from  their  creed  the  doctrine  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  spiritual  influence,  but  that  these  doctrines  are  con- 
tradictory. In  proportion  as  the  one  is  believed  and  acted 
upon,  the  influence  of  the  other  is  neutralized.     How  can 


402  NEW   DIVINITY— CONCLUSION'. 

a  man  feel  dependant  on  God  for  that  which  is  at  any  mo- 
ment within  the  reach  of  his  natural  ability  ?  This  ten- 
dency of  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability  is  evidently  felt  by 
its  advocates.  They  sometimes  endeavour  to  unite  these 
two  doctrines  in  their  preaching;  with  what  success  may 
be  illustrated  by  a  reference  to  one  of  their  own  writers. 
In  an  article  in  the  Christian  Spectator,  entitled  "  An  In- 
quiry into  the  true  Way  of  Preaching  on  Ability,"  we  have 
the  following : — 

"  It  has  been  common,  if  not  universal,  for  the  orthodox 
pulpit  of  New-England,  while  insisting  on  man's  natural 
ability,  to  announce  it  as  an  absolute  certainty,  that  he 
,never  will  obey,  without  a  sovereign  intervention  of  special 
grace.  This,  unquestionably,  was  correct :  it  was  but  to 
tell  the  truth,  and  truth  of  the  highest  importance.  But 
what  is  the  state  of  an  attentive,  convinced  mind,  under 
such  instruction  ?  convinced,  at  the  same  time,  that  it  has 
natural  power,  and  that,  left  to  itself,  it  is  as  certain  as  its 
own  existence,  that  it  never  will  exert  that  power.  Let 
such  a  mind,  then,  suppose  itself  left  to  itself;  having  no- 
thing on  which  its  hopes  can  rest  but  its  natural  power. 
Would  it  not,  under  that  impression,  be  without  all  reason 
for  exerting  its  power  ?  and  could  any  one  reasonably  ex- 
pect that  it  would  exert  it  ?"* — Vol.  7,  No.  2,  p.  246. 

'  *  The  author  of  this  essay  is  the  Rev.  Dr.  Skinner.  We  were 
not  aware  of  this  fact  until  the  publication  of  his  recent  work,  en- 
titled,  "  Aids  to  Preaching  and  Hearing,"  in  which  this  essay  is  re- 
published, with  slight  alterations  in  the  style.  It  was  in  this  article 
that  wc  found  the  objection  to  the  Arminian  views  of  ability,  (noticed 
on  page  64,)  namely, — that  it  identifies  divine  and  human  agency. 
To  this  objection  Dr.  S.  refers  in  his  preface,  a  circumstance  which 
shows  that  he  considers  it  of  great  importance. 

Had  we  known  earlier  the  source  of  this  article,  we  should  have 
considered  it  entitled  to  more  particular  notice,  as  from  the  reputa- 
tion and  undoubted  ability  of  its  author,  wc  may  safely  presume  that 
it  presents  the  most  eficctivc  argument  of  which  that  side  of  the 


NEW  DIVINITY — CONCLUSION.  403 

What  is  this  but  a  plain  admission  that  one  of  these 
doctrines  neutraUzes  the  other,  and  that  it  is  therefore 
necessary  to  keep  back  the  one,  while  insisting  on  the 
other  ? 

question  is  capable.  Not  that  any  of  its  arguments  have  been  over- 
looked  ;  but  we  would  have  considered  it  an  advantage  to  be  able 
to  connect  them  with  so  distinguished  a  name. 

But  this  essay,  while  it  bears  the  impress  of  great  talents,  is  a 
■singularly  contradictory  production.  In  the  first  part  the  author 
maintains  "  that  God  unquestionably  demands  of  every  sinner  an 
instantaneous  conversion, — a  conversion  begun  and  completed  in  the 
same  moment,  from  sin  to  himself,"  that  "  the  Bible  seems  to  know 
nothing  of  ^raJwaZ  conversions;  though  doubtless  there  are  many 
instances  of  persons,  who,  after  a  period  longer  or  shorter  of  outward 
reformations,  and  internal  conflicts  with  the  Spirit  of  grace,  are  at 
length  made  willing  to  submit  to  God." — p.  210.  Of  the  opposite 
doctrine  he  remarks,  "  Law,  grace,  holiness,  God,  and  all  eternal 
things,  will,  as  a  matter  of  course,  be  despised  by  the  people,  where 
preachers,  in  any  way,  or  on  any  pretext  whatever,  give  them  a 
dispensation  from  strict  duty,  or  consent  to  any  kind  or  degree  of 
gradualism  in  conversion." — p.  214.  Exercises  performed  as  con- 
ducing  to  conversion  are  reprobated  on  the  ground  that  they  are 
impenitent  and  sinful. — pp.  170,  171,  208.  He  deprecates  the  pre. 
valence  of  the  style  of  preaching  which  grows  out  of  the  theory  to 
which  he  thus  objects. 

But  he  is  not  fully  satisfied  with  the  style  of  preaching  to  which 
his  own  principles  lead.  He  gives  as  a  specimen  "'Repent,  repent 
this  very  instant :  we  say  not  try  to  repent,  or  exercise  thought  in 
order  to  repent,  but  instantly  repent.' "  "  Such  a  strain,"  he  says, 
"has  been  so  familiar,  especially  in  seasons  of  revival,  that  I  almost 
tremble  to  express  a  suspicion  of  its  not  being  precisely  correct." — 
p.  235.  To  this  preaching,  which  is  absurd  enough,  but  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  doctrine,  that  God  demands  of  every  sinner 
a  conversion  which  must  be  "begun  and  completed  in  the  same 
moment,"  and  which  consists,  as  he  elsewhere  expresses  it,  in  an 
"indivisible  act  of  the  mind,"  he  objects,  that  "It  allows  no  place  for 
effort,  preliminary  to  the  very  act  of  duty  itself." — p.  234.  He  con- 
tends that  "  the  mind  does  not  possess  the  power  to  put  itself  di- 
rectly, or  by  a  mere  volition,  into  a  repentant  state." — p.  237.   And 


404  NEW  DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 

The  doctrines  of  modern  Calvinism  do  not  constitute 
one  harmonious  scheme.  It  is  a  system  (if  a  system  it 
may  be  called)  of  contrary  principles.  It  sets  the  gospel 
against  the  law,  and  the  law  against  the  gospel.     Instead 

in  the  next  article  on  "  How  to  repent,"  he  remarks,  "  Repenting, 
or  turning  to  God,  is  a  state  of  mind  which  a  man  cannot  bring  him- 
self into  by  one  mere  volition.  He  cannot  repent  simply  by  resolv- 
ing or  saying  within  himself,  /  will  repent.  That  resolution  may 
fix  his  mind  on  repenting,  and  be  the  beginning  of  a  series  of  mental 
acts  and  exercises  which  will  result  in  his  repentance ;  but  his  re- 
pentance is  not  its  immediate  sequent,  &c." — p.  256.  If  these  are 
not  contradictions,  we  know  not  the  meaning  of  the  term.  He  first 
denies  that  there  is  any  kind  or  degree  of  gradualism  in  conversion, 
and  insists  that  it  must  be  begun  and  completed  in  the  same  mo- 
ment;  and  then  denies  that  conversion  can  be  accomplished  by  one 
effort,  and  contends  for  gradualism,  or  a  series  of  mental  acts  and 
exercises  which  will  result  in  repentance,  &c.  He  anticipates  and 
refutes  the  very  objections  which  he  elsewhere  brings  against  the 
doctrine  of  preliminary  effort,  as  held  by  Arminians,  so  that  Dr.  S. 
in  one  part  of  his  book  refutes  Dr.  S.  in  another  part. 

Where,  then,  is  now  the  difference  between  Dr.  S.  and  Arminians? 
Has  he  come  over  entirely  ?  Not  yet.  Although  he  admits  of  "  ef. 
forts  preliminary,"  he  has  his  own  opinion  as  to  what  exercises  are 
admissible,  and  does  not  admit  prayer  among  them.  He  objects  to 
it  on  the  ground  that,  unless  it  is  "  an  exercise  of  holiness,"  or  the 
act  of  one  who  already  loves  God,  it  is  sin. — p.  24.  The  exercises 
for  which  he  pleads  are  thus  stated:  "All  I  have  stated  is,  that,  in 
order  to  repent,  the  objects  that  work  repentance  in  the  mind  must 
be  thought  of  and  considered." — p.  259.  We  would,  however,  sug- 
gest whether  thought  and  consideration,  unless  they  are  "  holy  ex- 
ercises," are  not  as  certainly  sinful  as  prayer.  Does  not  the  principle 
apply  equally  to  prayer  and  to  all  other  exercises  ?  On  what  ground 
will  it  be  maintained  that  prayer,  in  order  to  become  holy  is  impeni- 
tent,  and  therefore  sinful,  while  other  acts,  such  as  Dr.  S.may  choose 
to  enjoin,  are  perfectly  right,  although  they  confessedly  precede  re- 
pentance, and  are  in  order  to  it.  It  seems  that  Dr.  S.  has  no  objec- 
tions  to  the  sinner's  performing  acts  as  prerequisite  to  repentance, 
so  that  he  performs  those  for  which  the  doctor  has  a  preference. 

There  is  another  point  of  difference  between  Dr.  S.  and  Armi- 


NEW   DIVINITY CONCLUSION.  405 

of  blowing  its  "  wind  of  doctrine"  steadily  from  one  point, 
it  assails  the  church  with  contrary  breezes,  driving  her 
first  in  one  direction  and  then  in  another.  When  she 
sails  too  near  the  shore  on  one  side,  she  must  be  blown 
off  toward  the  other,  so  that  she  is  kept  constantly  tacking. 
At  one  time  it  is  important  to  preach  the  "  doctrines  of 
grace"  as  Calvinists  understand  them  ;  then  the  church 
runs  into  Antinomianism.  The  doctrine  of  natural  ability 
must  next  be  preached  as  a  corrective  ;  then  the  church 
runs  toward  Pelagianism. 

An  exemplification  of  these  remarks  may  be  found  in 
Dr.  Beecher's  reply  to  Dr.  Porter,  already  referred  to. 
Dr.  P.  had  charged  him  with  "  exalting  human  agency, 
so  as  virtually  to  lose  sight  of  human  dependence."  Dr. 
B.  justified  himself  by  stating  that  "  the  doctrine  of  de- 
pendance  had  been  reiterated  and  overstated  till  it  had 
produced,  extensively  in  the   community,  the  results  of 

nians.  While  he  concedes  the  doctrine  of  exercises  preliminary 
and  conducive  to  regeneration,  he  also  asserts,  in  plain  terms,  the 
doctrine  which  is  falsely  charged  on  Arminianism,  namely,  that  iV«- 
penitent  exercises  are  to  be  performed  as  conducive  to  regeneration. 
He  contends  for  "  effort  preliminary  to  the  very  act  of  dutt/  itself," 
— of  course  the  effort  cannot  be  an  act  of  duty,  and  must  therefore 
be  one  not  required  by  the  law  of  God.  He  also  contends  for  "  a 
series  of  acts  and  exercises"  of  which  "repentance  is  not  the  imme. 
diate  sequent,"  but  "  which  will  result  in  repentance."  Of  course, 
these  acts,  preceding  repentance,  must  be  impenitent.  Here,  then, 
is  the  very  doctrine  of  which  he  says,  on  page  171,  "To  state  it,  is 
sufficient  censure.  Men  directed  to  do  what  is  admitted  to  be  sin, 
in  order  to  their  coming  to  repentance  and  securing  the  divine  fa- 
vour!" As  his  theory  identifies  repentance  and  regeneration,  he  is 
compelled  to  forbid  all  preparatory  exercises,  or  to  require  impeni- 
tent ones.  Sometimes  he  does  the  one,  and  sometimes  the  other. 
To  escape  one  absurdity  he  flies  to  another.  As  Arminians  do  not 
consider  repentance  and  regeneration  to  be  the  same,  they  can  en. 
join  preliminary  exercises,  and  yet  require  that  they  shall  be  strictly 
penitent. 


40G  NEW  DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 

fatalism  with  multitudes.  If  free  agency  was  admitted  at 
all,  it  was  so  out  of  sight,  or  so  dimly  seen  in  the  back 
ground,  that  a  large  portion  of  the  community  had  ceased 
to  feel  the  practical  influence  of  the  doctrine  of  accounta- 
bility, while  many  were  in  theory,  and  more  in  feeling, 
fatalists.  In  this  condition,  the  people  did  not  need  high- 
toned  Calvinism  on  the  point  of  dependance:  they  had 
been  crammed  with  it,  and  were  dying  with  excessive  ali- 
ment, and  needed  a  long  and  vigorous  prescription  of  free 
agency  to  produce  an  alterative,  and  render  the  truth  salu- 
tary, by  administering  the  proper  potions  in  due  season 
Nor  was  there  for  a  long  time  any  danger  of  overaction 
on  the  subject  of  free  agency." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agency , 
p.  205. 

Dr.  B.  administered  his  "  vigorous  prescription  of  free 
agency,"  which  operated  so  powerfully  that  his  patients 
were  going  over  to  the  other  extreme,  as  is  intimated  in 
the  following  extract :  "  And  before  I  received  your  letter, 
I  had  felt  the  propriety  of  beginning  to  balance  the  over- 
actings  of  free  agency,  by  giving  more  prominence,  and 
frequency,  and  power  to  the  doctrine  of  absolute  depend- 
ance on  the  Holy  Ghost." — p.  206. 

We  are  no  longer  at  a  loss  how  to  account  for  the  im- 
patience which  this  class  of  theologians  manifest,  when 
required  to  maintain  something  like  systematic  consist- 
ency in  their  preaching.  Robert  Hall  was  not  alone  in 
this  particular.  "  It  makes  no  small  demand  on  our  pa- 
tience," says  Mr.  Barnes,  "  when  we  see  the  system- 
maker  remove  angle  after  angle,  and  apply  stroke  after 
stroke,  to  some  great  mass  of  truth  which  a  mighty  genius 
has  struck  out,  but  which  keen-eyed  and  jealous  ortho- 
doxy will  not  admit  to  its  proper  bearing  on  the  souls  of 
men,  until  it  is  located  in  a  creed,  and  cramped  into  some 
frame-work  of  faith,  that  has  been  reared  around  the  Bible. 
Our  sympathy  with  such  men  as  Butler,  and  Chalmers, 


NEW  DIVINITY — COXCLUSION.  407 

aticl  Foster,  and  Hall,  is  far  greater  than  with  Turreline 
or  Ridgely.  With  less  patience  still  do  we  listen  to  those 
whose  only  business  it  is  to  shape  and  reduce  to  a  pre- 
scribed form ;  who  never  look  at  a  passage  in  the  Bible  or 
a  fact  in  nature,  without  first  robbing  it  of  its  freshness, 
by  an  attempt  to  give  it  a  sectarian  location :  who  never 
stumble  on  an  original  and  unclassified  idea,  without  asking 
whether  the  system-maker  had  left  any  niche  for  the  late- 
born  intruder ;  and  who  applies  to  it  all  tests,  as  to  a  non 
descript  substance  in  chymistry,  in  order  to  fasten  on  it 
the  charge  of  an  afiinity  with  some  rejected  confession, 
or  some  creed  of  a  suspected  name." — Introductory  Essay, 
p.  16. 

All  this  looks  very  pretty  and  plausible  at  first  sight ; 
but  let  us  examine  it.  What,  we  ask,  is  the  grand  differ- 
ence between  a  disciplined,  and  an  undisciplined  mind  ? 
Is  it  not  that  the  former  refers  facts  to  principles,  and 
principles  to  systems;  while  the  latter  stores  away  its  ac- 
quisitions in  disorder  1  Does  Mr.  B.'s  knowledge  consist 
in  "facts,"  and  "  xmclassified  ideas,"  and  "great  masses 
of  truth,"  on  which  he  has  stumbled,  or  which  his  "  mighty 
genius  has  struck  out,"  and  for  which  he  can  find  no 
"  niche"  in  his  philosophical  or  religious  theories  ?  We 
cannot  avoid  regarding  with  suspicion  that  theological  sys- 
tem which  furnishes  no  "  niche"  for  a  "  great  mass  of 
revealed  truth  ;"  and  we  confess  that  it  made  "  no  small 
demand  on  our  patience"  when  Mr.  B.,  acting  the  part  of 
the  system-maker,  applied  stroke  after  stroke  to  the  doctrine 
of  a  general  atonement,  until  it  was  made  to  unite  with  the 
doctrine  that  God  eternally  and  unchangeably  decreed  the 
salvation  of  a  definite  number  of  the  human  race,  and  the 
damnation  of  the  rest. 

It  is  alarming  to  reflect  on  the  extent  to  which  New 
Divinity  must  have  multiplied  spurious  conversions,  and 
unfounded  hopes  of  salvation.     We  cannot  see  how  it  is 


408  NEW  DIVINITY — CONCLUSION. 

possible  for  any  to  be  converted  by  attending  to  its  spe- 
cific directions.  We  have  shown,  not  only  that  many  of 
its  teachers  forbid  prayer,  or  attending  to  the  means  of 
grace,  as  conducing  to  conversion,  and  insist  that  the  sin- 
ner shall  perform  the  work  in  his  own  strength,  by  one 
single  act;  but  likewise,  that  this  is  precisely  what  the 
system  requires,  and  that  any  other  directions  v/ould  be  in- 
consistent with  its  leading  principles.  We  would  not  bo 
understood  to  entertain  the  opinion  that  none  are  truly  con- 
verted in  the  churches  where  it  is  preached.  We  doubt 
not  that  there  are,  in  those  churches,  many  holy  men  and 
women,  and  many  sound  conversions.  But  these  persons 
are  not  indebted  to  this  system  for  their  conversion,  or  for 
'their  present  excellence.  There  are  several  ways  in  which 
genuine  conversions  in  such  churches  may  be  accounted 
for,  without  giving  the  credit  to  New  Divinity.  Some- 
times individuals  are  powerfully  awakened  by  the  preach- 
ing, (for  many  of  its  advocates  preach  the  law  with  great 
power  and  effect,)  go  to  their  homes,  folloAv  the  directions 
of  the  Bible,  and  obtain  mercy,  without  knowing  what 
other  directions  might  be  given.  Many  are  so  deeply 
awakened,  that  they  follow  their  own  prcvaous  impres- 
sions and  the  impulses  of  the  Spirit,  praying  and  agoniz 
ing  for  pardon,  and  regeneration,  and  peace,  in  despite  of 
the  intimations  that. in  so  doing  they  are  acting  the  part 
of  rebels,  and  growing  worse  and  worse.  Others,  although 
they  suppose  that  these  instructions  must  be  right,  and 
conclude  that  they  arc  Christians  because  they  have 
changed  their  minds,  purposed  to  serve  God,  or  performed 
some  one  act  which  they  have  been  told  is  submission, 
dissatisfied  with  their  condition,  and  determined  to  enjoy 
all  that  they  believe  to  be  the  privilege  of  Christians,  press 
on  to  higher  attainments,  and  thus  reach,  ultimately,  the 
character  which  they  were  previously  supposed  to  pos- 
sess.    Besides,   ministers   of  this  faith   frequently   give 


NEW  DIVINITY CONCLUSION.  409 

instructions  directly  opposite  to  their  creed — the  very  in- 
structions which  they  at  other  times  condemn.  It  is 
astonishing  with  what  readiness  and  composure  they  con- 
tradict themselves.  But  how  fearful  the  probability  that 
thousands  will  conclude  that  they  are  Christians,  because 
they  have  "  submitted,"  as  it  is  called,  by  taking  one  single 
step, — by  doing  what,  according  to  Dr.  Skinner,  they 
could  "  begin  and  complete  in  the  same  moment ;"  and 
that  they  will  remain  in  that  condition ;  especially  as  they 
are  taught  that,  being  once  converted,  they  can  never  be 
lost,  and  that  Christian  experience  is  perfectly  compatible 
with  being  carnal,  sold  under  sin,  and  committing  it  every 
day.  It  may  be  truly  said  with  regard  to  this  system, 
Wide  is, the  gate  and  broad  is  the  way  that  leadeth  unto 
life  ;  and  that  thousands  more  do  not  go  in  thereat,  is 
owing  to  the  influence  of  those  gospel  truths  on  the  public 
mind,  which  New  Divinity  finds  so  much  in  its  way. 

We  recognise  one  of  the  most  pernicious  tendencies  of 
this  system  in  the  necessity  which  it  imposes,  of  conform- 
ing the  evidences  of  religious  experience,  and  the  stand- 
ard of  religious  enjoyment,  to  its  false  views  of  regenera- 
tion. It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  those  whose  efforts  to 
become  Christians  have  gone  no  further  than  the  per- 
formance of  one  single  mental  act,  can  have  the  Spirit 
of  God  bearing  witness  with  their  spirits  that  they  are  the 
children  of  God,  and  also  the  consequent  peace  and  joy. 
They  must,  in  the  earlier  stages  of  their  profession,  de- 
rive all  their  evidence  that  they  are  Christians  from  the 
consciousness  merely  of  their  having  performed  that  one 
act,  which  they  are  told  is  sufficient  to  make  them  such. 
If  this  inference  is  not  sufficient  to  make  them  happy,  they 
must  be  instructed  that  such  feelings  are  not  usually 
attendant  on  conversion.  It  will  be  the  more  necessary 
to  guard  them  on  this  point,  if  they  are  surrounded  by 
Methodist  converts,  and  have  opportunities  of  contrasting 
18 


410  NEW   DIVINITY CONCLUSION. 

their  experience  with  the  experience  of  those  who  arc  re- 
joicing in  God.  Hence  sennons  have  been  preached, 
and  tracts  written,  in  which  the  great  object  has  been  to 
show  that  regeneration  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
absence  of  those  feelings  of  enjoyment.  The  desire  for 
those  emotions  is  stigmatized  as  a  selfish  desire  for  hap- 
piness. Attempts  are  made  to  cast  suspicion  on  the  ex- 
perience of  those  whose  conversion  is  succeeded  by 
great  joy. 

The  effect  of  this  must  be  to  strengthen  the  hands  of 
infidelity.  Let  one  who  has  entertained  doubts  of  the 
truth  of  Christianity  be  awakened  by  the  Spirit,  after  hav- 
,ing  listened  for  years  to  animated  and  eloquent  representa- 
tions of  the  power  as  distinguished  from  i\ie  form  of  reli- 
gion— after  having  been  accustomed  to  hear  the  disquie- 
tude of  the  unconverted,  contrasted  with  the  "  great  peace" 
of  those  who  are  bom  of  God ;  let  him  be  told  that  sub- 
mission is  one  indivisible  act,  which  he  can  perform  this 
moment ;  and  when  he  has  performed  what  he  supposes 
is  the  act  required,  and  finds  himself  counted  among  Chris- 
tians, and  looks  in  vain  for  the  happiness  which  he  has 
heard  so  gloriously  described,  and  is  told  that  men  may 
be  converted  and  exj)erience  no  change  in  their  feelings, 
and  finds  a  disposition  to  class  those  feelings  with  de- 
lusion— what  will  be  the  probable  effect?  He  will  re- 
lapse into  his  former  skepticism.  He  will  say,  I  have 
been  of  the  opinion  that  all  the  enjoyment  about  wliich 
Christians  have  made  so  much  ado,  was  nothing  more 
than  the  feeling  induced  by  the  supposition,  whether  true 
or  false,  that  they  were  in  the  favour  of  God,  that  an  infi- 
del is  quite  as  happy  when  he  imagines  himself  safe,  and 
I  am  now  confirmed  in  this  opinion. 

Indeed,  this  system  runs  into  infidelity  at  several  points. 
We  have  an  example  of  this  tendency  of  the  doctrine  of 
natural  ability,  in  a  passage  in  the  essay  of  Dr.  Skinner, 


NEW  DIVINITY CONCLUSION.  411 

to  which  reference  has  just  been  made.  He  writes,  "  Be- 
sides, what,  according  to  Scripture,  is  the  primary  ground 
of  man's  condemnation  ?  Not  his  having  refused  the  prof- 
fered power  of  the  Spirit,  but  his  not  having  used  his 
faculties  aright.  Thus  the  heathen  are  declared  to  be 
inexcusable ;  not  because  they  have  rejected  the  Spirit, 
but  because  they  are  rational  beings,  and  creation  shows 
to  them  the  perfections  of  its  Author.  They  are  men; 
God's  glory  is  spread  out  before  them,  over  his  works ; 
therefore,  they  are  without  excuse  for  not  knowing  and 
loving  God.  The  conclusion  follows,  from  the  premises 
mentioned ;  no  other  premise  is  required  to  justify  it. 
The  heathen,  depraved  as  they  are,  are  condemned  on 
this  sole  account." 

It  is  here  plainly  asserted  that  the  heathen  have  every 
thing  that  is  necessary  to  their  "  knowing  and  loving  God" 
in  their  own  faculties,  and  the  works  of  creation.  The 
inference  is  irresistible,  that  neither  revelation  nor  spiritual 
influence  is  necessary;  the  very  thing  for  which  skeptics 
contend.  And  we  are  told,  with  perfect  consistency,  that 
the  heathen  are  condemned,  not  because  they  have  re- 
jected the  Spirit,  but  solely  on  account  of  their  not  having 
availed  themselves  of  the  light  of  nature  and  the  power 
which  they  possessed  naturally.  Had  these  sentiments 
been  published  from  Tammany  Hall,  they  would  have 
shocked  the  feelings  of  the  religious  portion  of  the  com- 
munity ;  but  coming  from  the  eloquent  and  popular  pastor 
of  the  Mercer-street  Presbyterian  Church,  they  are  to  be 
received  as  the  pure  gospel.  This,  however,  is  a  consist- 
ent exhibition  of  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability. 

There  will  also  be  found  a  perfect  agreement  between 
Deism  and  New  Divinity,  on  the  nature  of  depravity, 
holiness,  and  regeneration.  Deists  do  not  hesitate  to 
attribute  depravity  to  man.  Grant,  then,  that  it  does  not 
adhere  to  the  constitution  as  a  source  of  depraved  action ; 


412  NEW  DIVINITY CONCLUSIOrf, 

that  it  is  not  hereditary  ;  that  it  consists  solely  in  vahm- 
tary  action,  and  they  will  not  object.  Grant  them  that  re- 
generation is  nothing  more  than  a  change  in  the  voluntary 
exercises,  which  man  is  capable  of  effecting  without  super- 
natnral  influences  ;  and  that  holiness  is  nothing  more  than 
such  right  voluntary  action  as  man  is  naturally  able  to  per- 
form, and  there  will  be  a  perfect  agreement.  They  may 
entertain  no  partiality  for  the  technicalities  by  which  these 
doctrines  are  represented,  but  on  the  doctrines  them- 
selves there  will  be  no  dispute.  In  fact,  New  Divinity, 
so  far  as  religious  experience  is  concerned,  is  nothing 
more  than  the  religion  of  nature,  associateii  with  gospel 
motives. 

This  system  encourages  the  sinner  in  the  postpone- 
ment of  repentance.  He  possesses  the  ability  naturally, 
and  independently  of  the  Holy  Spirit — an  ability  which 
no  depravity  can  impair,  to  do  all  that  is  necessary  to  his 
salvation  at  any  moment,  inasmuch  as  it  consists  in  "  one 
indivisible  act  of  the  mind."  The  only  danger  that  can 
attend  postponement,  according  to  this  theory,  arises  from 
the  possibility  of  dying  so  suddenly  that  there  is  not  time 
for  a  single  volition. 

And  while  this  system  on  the  one  hand  encourages  aw- 
ful presumption,  on  the  other  it  overwhelms  with  despair. 
If  the  sinner  is  not  deeply  convicted,  he  is  in  danger  of 
bein<T  led  by  it  to  suppose  himself  a  Christian,  without 
ever  having  experienced  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  or  Avilhout 
having  called  on  God,  in  earnest  prayer,  for  pardon  ; 
merely  because  he  has  made  up  his  mind  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian, or  performed  some  act  which  the  sinner  may  begin 
and  complete  in  one  moment.  While  those  who  are  fully 
awakened,  and  can  be  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of 
genuine  evidence  of  their  acceptance  with  God,  as  the 
ground  of  the  conclusion  that  they  are  Christians,  are  for- 
bidden to  use  the  only  means  of  obtaining  that  assurance, 


NEW  DIVINITY — CONCLUSION.  413 

and  are  in  some  instances  driven  to  madness.  They  are 
told  that  they  are  vk^holiy  impenitent ;  that  if  they  were 
penitent  they  would  be  Christians ;  that  their  deep  dis- 
tress is  nothing  more  than  sorrow  tor  the  consequences 
of  their  sins ;  it  is  mere  selfishness  ;  they  are  afraid  of 
hell ;  it  makes  them  worse  instead  of  better  ;  they  are  not 
to  pray,  for  the  prayers  of  the  wicked  are  an  abomination ; 
they  can  give  their  hearts  to  God,  and  be  Christians  in  a 
moment,  if  they  will.  The  poor  sinner  makes  an  effort, 
but  it  produces  no  perceptible  change.  He  supposes  that 
conversion  will  bring  peace  of  mind,  but  there  remains 
nothing,  as  yet,  but  a  sense  of  condemnation.  He  cannot 
be  induced  to  imagine  that  any  one  act  which  he  has  per- 
formed is  regeneration,  and  to  "  indulge  a  hope ;"  and  he 
is  thus  driven  to  despair,  unless  he  receive  other  instruc- 
tions. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  we  judge  of  the  moral  and 
religious  character  of  the  advocates  of  this  theory,  and  the 
members  of  their  churches,  by  its  logical  and  practical 
tendencies.  It  is  so  operated  upon  and  neutralized,  by 
other  and  purer  systems,  that  it  has  not  had  the  opportu- 
nity of  exhibiting  its  legitimate  effects  on  society.  Be- 
sides opposition  from  other  quarters,  it  finds  in  Methodism 
an  almost  omnipresent  foe.  But  if  it  were  to  succeed  in 
putting  down  all  opposition,  and  securing  the  field  to  itself, 
it  woidd  bring  on  the  millennium  of  infidelity. 


THE    END. 


415 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Chapter  I. 

Ability 

7 

II. 

Ability — continued       -         .         - 

14 

III. 

Ability — continued           -         -         - 

42 

IV. 

Ability — continued       .         -         - 

59 

V. 

Depravity       .         -         .         -         - 

74 

VI. 

Depravity — continued 

84 

VII. 

Depravity — continued      -         -         - 

93 

VIII. 

Depravity — continued 

101 

IX. 

Holiness         .         -         .         -         - 

106 

X. 

Character  of  infants     -         -         - 

115 

XI. 

Regeneration           .         -         -         . 

119 

XII. 

Regeneration — continued 

134 

XIII. 

Regeneration — continued 

141 

XIV. 

Regeneration — continued 

153 

XV. 

Regeneration — continued 

166 

XVI. 

Moral  Suasion     -         -         -         - 

170 

XVII. 

Moral  Suasion — continued 

178 

XVIII. 

Prayer        -         .         .         -         - 

190 

XIX. 

Prayer — continued           .         -         - 

204 

XX. 

Prayer — continued       -         -        . 

217 

XXI. 

Means  of  Grace      -         .         -         - 

226 

XXII. 

Means  of  Grace — continued 

236 

XXIII. 

Calvinism       -         -         -         -         - 

250 

XXIV. 

Calvinism — continued 

263 

XXV. 

Calvinism — continued 

-  271 

416  CONTENTS  TO  NEW  DIVINITY. 

PAGE 

Chapter  XXVI.  Calvinism — continued  -         -       284 

XXVII.  Calvinism — continued  -           297 

XXVIII.  Calvinism — continued  -         -       311 

XXIX.  Calvinism — continued  -           321 

XXX..  Calvinism — continued  -         -       329 

XXXI.  Calvinism — continued  -           338 

XXXII.  Calvinism— continued  -         -       348 

XXXIII.  Calvinism — continued  -           358 

XXXIV.  Calvinism — continued  -         -       378 
XXXV.  Calvinism — continued  -           386 

XXXVI.  Conclusion     -         -  -         -       400 


CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 


BIOGRAPHIES. 

LIFE  OF  REV.  J.  WESLEY. 

By  Richaid  Watson,  with  Transla- 
tions and  Notes  by  John  Eni'vy, 
12iiio.  .slieep  50 

LIFEOFDR.  ADAM  CLARKE, 
3  Vviis.  in  1,  12mo.  sheep  1   50 

do  English  edition.  3  vols.  8vo.  ca!f 
extra  8  00 

A  few  copies  of  3d  vol.  12nio. 
Clarke's  Lite,  to  complete  sets,  mus- 
lin 44 

Also,  a  few  8vo.  3d  vol.  67 

LIFEUF  RE  V.J.  FLETCHER, 

Compiled  from  I  lie  Narrative  of  Rev. 
Mr  Wesley,  tlie  Biographical  Notes 
of  Rev.  Mr.  Oilpm,  from  his  own  let- 
ters, and  other  anihentic  documents. 
By  Rev.  .loseph  Benson.     12mo.     75 

LIFE  OF  MRS.  FLETCHER, 
consort  and  relict  of  Kev.  John 
Fletcher,  compiled  from  her  journal 
and  other  authetuic  documents.  By 
Rev.  Henry  Moore  75 

LIFE  OF  REV.  DR.  COKE, 
inchidiii!;  HI  detail  his  various  travels 
aiul  cxtiaordiiiury  Missionary  exer- 
tions in  England,  Ireland,  Anienca, 
and  the  West  Indies;  intersper.sed 
with  numerous  reflections.  By  Sam- 
uel Drew  75 

TdFE  OF  REV.  FREEBORN 
GARRETTSON,  compiled  fromhis 
printed  and  manuscript  journals,  and 
other  authentic  documents.  By  Na- 
than Bangs,  I).  D.  75 

LIFE  OF  LADY  DA  ROY  MAX- 
WELL, compiled  from  lier  volumin- 
ous diary  anil  correspondence,  and 
other  anihentic  documents.  By  Rev. 
John  Lancaster  1   00 

MEMOIR  OF  Sl.MON  EPIS- 
COPIUS,  the  celehraied  pupil  of 
Arminius,  and  suliseu.uently  doctor 
of  divinity  and  professor  of  theology 
in  the  University  of  Leyden  ;  who 
was  condemned  by  the  Synod  of 
Dort  as  a  clangerous  heretic,  and 
sentenced  to  per[ietual  hanishinent 
by  t\i~i  civil  authorities  of  Holland 
for  holding  the  doetnno  of  general 
redemption.  To  which  is  added,  A 
Brief  Account  of  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
&c.,  &c.    By  Frederick  Calder  1  00 


EXPERIENCE  OF  SEVE- 
RAL EMINENT  METHODIST 
PREACHERS,  with  aii account  of 
their  call  to,  and  suc-ess  m  the  mi« 
nistry  :  in  a  series  of  letters  written 
by  themselves  to  the  Rev.  John 
Wesley  75 

MEMOIR  OF  MRS.  MARY 
TATH  A  M,  late  of  Nottingham.  By 
Rev.  Jd.seph  Beaumont,  M.  D  75 
CHRISTIAN  BIOGRAPHY,  vol, 
1,  edited  by  ReV.  I  honias  Jackson, 
containing  '^^he  Life  of  Isaac  Watt.s, 
D.  D.,  and  of  Mr.  Tiiomas  Hulilnir- 
ton,  18ino.  50 

vol.  2,  containing  the 


Life  of  Rev.   Peani  Dickinson  and 
of  Mr.  John  Janeway.  50 

ol.  3,  containing   the 


Life  of  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  of  Rev 
Joseph  A  Heine,  and  of  Mr.iNalhaiiiel 
Keyuood  50 

■  vol.  4,  containing   tlie 

Life  of  Rev.  Samuel  Pearce,  of  Rev. 
.John  Shower,  of  Mrs.  Agnes  Bf  an- 
mont,  and  of  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Nev\ell  50 

vol.  5,  containing  the  Lil'e 


of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  and  Bishop 
Latimer.  50 

MEMOIR  OF  THK  LIFE  AND 
MINISTRY  OF  MR.  WILLIAM 
BRA.MWELL,  lately  an  Itinerant 
Methodist  Preacher;  with  ex'racts 
from  his  interesting  and  extensive 
coriespondence.  By  James  Sig- 
ston,  iSino.  50 

MEMOIRS  OF  THE  REV.  D.\. 
VII)  STONER,  containing  copious 
exiracts  from  his  diary  and  epistolary 
correspondence,    ISino  50 

MEMOIR  OF  THE  LIFK, 
CH.\RAC1  ER,  AND  LABOURS 
OF  THE  REV.  JOHN  SMITH, 
late  of  Slictfield.  By  Richard  Tref- 
(ry,  jr.  18ino.  50 

ACCOUNT  OF  THE  EXPK- 
RIENCE  OF  HESTER  ANINJ 
RO'JERS;  and  her  funeral- sermon, 
by  Rev.  T.  Coke,  i^L.D.  To  which 
are  added,  her  Sjuritua'.  Letters, 
ISino.  38 

LIFE  OF  HENRY  LONODE.V, 
Minister  of  the  Gospel;  c«>Mi|i:led 
from  his  memoirs,  diary,  letters, 
and  other  authentic  documents,  18 
mo.  38 


Catalogue  of  books. 


EXPERIENCE  AND  GOSPEL 
LABOURS  OF  THE  REV.  BEN- 
JAMIN ABBOTT  ;  to  which  is  an- 
nexed a  narrative  of  his  life  and 
death.     By  John  Ffirih  50 

LIFE  AND  LABOURS  OF 
THE  LATE  REV.  JOHN  VaL- 
TON  ;  written  by  himself,  and  now 
edited,  with  many  additions  and  let- 
ters, by  Joseph  SutciilTe,  A.  M. 
18mo.  38 

MEMOIR,  DIARY,  AND  LET- 
TERS, OF  MISS  HANNAH  S. 
BUNTING,  cf  Philadelphia,  vvho 
depa.Jed  this  Life  May  25,  183C,  in 
the  thirty-first  year  of  her  age.  Com- 
piled by  Rev.  T.  Merritl.  In  two 
vols.  18mo.  60 

A  MEMOIR  OF  MR.  WILLIAM 

CARVOSSO,  sixty  years  a   chiss- 

'Icadcr  in  the  Wesieyan    Methodi.st 

Connci^tion,  written  by  tiiniaelf,  and 

Edited  by  his  sou  18ino.  60 

MEMOIR  OF  REV.  PEARD 
DICKINSON:  in  which  the  dis- 
pensations o*"  Providence  and  Grace 
toward  individuals  aree.xemplifird  in 
some  remarkable  instances.  Written 
by  himself.  Revised  and  corrected 
by  Joseph  Benson.     ISmo.  37 

MEMOIRS  OF  MRS.  ELIZA- 
BETH MORTIMER  :  with  selec- 
tions from  her  corresporidenc!  by 
Agnes  Biilmer,  Author  of  "  Mesi^i- 
ah's  Kingdom,"  iVc,  18ruo.  50 

THE  WALL'S  END  MINER; 
or  a  brief  Memory  of  the  Life  of 
Mr.  William  ('risier:  iiicludins  an 
Account  of  tlie  catastrophe  of  June 
I8th,  1835.  By  .lames  EvertU,  au- 
thor of  "  E  hvin,"  "  Tlie  Village 
Blacksmith, ■'  etc.  37 

LIFE  OF  MRS.  COOPER,  of 
London,  who  departed  this  life  June 
22,  1832,  in  the  twentv-sixlh  ytM  of 
hera^e  :  extracted  from  her  diary  and 
epistolary  eorrespondence.  By  Ad:im 
Clarke,  LL.  D.  50 

CALVINISTIC  CONTROVER- 
SY :  cml-riicuii:  a  Senrion  on  Pre- 
destination and  Election  ;  ntul  seve- 
ral numbers  of  Ihe  same  subject.  By 
Kev.  Wilbur  Fisk,  D.  D.,  Presiilent 
of  Wesieyan  University.  12ino.  75 
CHRISTIAN  THEOLOGY. 
By  Admn  Clarke,  LL.  D.,  F.  A.  S., 


selected  from  his  puUished  and  tra 
published  writings,  and  systemati- 
cally arranged  :  with  a  Life  of  the 
Author,  by  Samuel  Dunn,  l2rao.  1  00 

CHRISTIANS'  MANUAL;  a 
Treatise  on  Cluistian  Perfection : 
with  directions  for  obtaining  that 
state.  Compiled  principally  from  the 
works  of  Rev.  John  Wesley.  By 
Rev.  T.  Merritt.     32mo.  25 

CHRISTIAN  PATTERN;  or, 
a  Treatise  on  the  Imitation  of  Clirisl. 
From  the  Latinof  Thomas  a  Ken.pis, 
by  Rev.  John  Wesley.     32mo.        25 

CHRISTIAN  PERFECTION, 
a  Plain  Account  of,  as  believed 
land  taught  by  Rev.  John  Wesley.  A 
neat  pocket  edition.     32nio.  25 

CHRISTIAN  PERFECTION: 
being  an  extract  from  Rev.  John 
Fletcher's  Tiealise  on  that  subject. 
To  which  is  aiMi-d,  A  Letter  liy 
Thomas  Rutherfojd.  Pocket  edi- 
tion.    SCrrio.  2.5 

CHRISTIANITY,  INTRODUC- 
TION TO,  desijined  to  preserve 
Young  People  from  Irreligion  and 
Vice.     By     Itev.    Josejih    Sutclille 

CHRISTIA.M  BIOGRAPHY,  vd. 
1-5.     See  Bingraj/ktes. 

COMMENTARTES. 

CLARKE'S  COMMENTA  RV 
ON  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  TES- 
TA:MENTS  ;  A  New  Edition,  wiih 
the  Aullior's  Pinal  Corrections. 
On  Old  and  Now  Testaments,  impe- 
rial octavo,  j)lajn  sheep  18  00 
calf  plain  22  00 
do  gilt  25  00 
do  extra                                          28  00 

AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE 
GOSPEL  OF  ST.  MATTHEW 
AND  ST.  Mark,  AND  OK 
SOME  OTHER  DETACH  HI) 
PARTS  OF  THE  HOLY  SCRIP- 
TURE. By  Rev.  Ri(  hard  Watson, 
octavo  sheep  2  00 

Dodo  calf  2  25 

Do  do  ^-ilt  2  50 

Do  do  do  extra  2  75 

EXPLANATORY  NOTES 
UPON  THE  NEW  TESTA- 
MENT. By  John  Wesley,  M.  A. 
8vo.  sheep  2  Oi> 

do  calf  2  25 


CATALOGUE  OF  BOOKS. 


BENSON'S  COMMENTARY, 
witti  Critical,  Explniiatory  and  Prac- 
tical Notes  :  the  Marjjinal  Read- 
ings of  the  most  apjiroved  printed 
copies,  with  such  olliprs  as  appear  to 
\>e  countenanced  by  trie  Hebrevvand 
Greek  Originals  ;  A  copious  collec- 
tion of  parallel  texts  ;  Summaries 
of  each  book  and  chapter;  and  the 
date  of  ei'ery  transaction  and  event 
recorded  in  the  Sacred  Oracles, 
agreeably  to  the  calculations  of  the 
most  correct  chronologors-  Imperial 
octavo,  5  volumes  plain  sheep,  per 
set  15  00 

CONVERSATIONS  FOR  THE 
YOUNG  :  designed  to  promote  the 
profitable  reading  of  the  Scriptures. 
By  Kev.  Richard  Watson,   12iiio.  75 

DICTIONARY  OFTHE HOLY 
IJIBLE;  designer!  for  the  use  of 
Sunday  School  Teachers  and  Fa- 
milies :  with  maps  and  numerous 
fine  engravings.  By  Rev.  James 
Covel.  ji..  J8,no.  1  00 

DOCTRINAL  ,  TRACTS,  in 
l8mo.  50 


ELOQUENCE.  THE  PRINCI- 
PLES OF.  Adapted  to  the  Pulpit 
and  the  Bar.  By  tiie  Abbe  Maury- 
Tr.inslated  from  the  French  ;  with 
additional  Notes,  by  John  Neal 
Lake,  A.  M.  To  which  are  added 
Mr.  Wesley's  directions  concerning 
Pronunciation  and  Gesture.  In 
13ino.  50 

EPISCOPAL  CONTROVER- 
SY REVIKWEl).  and  DEFENCE 
OF  OUR  FATH[-:KS,  bound  toge- 
ther. By  Jo'iin  Euiury,  D.  D-,  wiih 
likeness.     8vo.  1   50 

EPISCOPAL  CONTROVER- 
SY REVIEWED,  with  likeness. 
8vo.  1  25 

ERRORS  OF  SOCINIAN- 
ISM,  l2mo.  75 

ESSAY  ON  SECRET  PRAY- 
ER 6 

FLETCHER'S  WORKS,  4  vols. 
8vo.,  sheep  7  50 

Do  do  do  calf  8  50 

Do  d:j  do  do  gilt  9  50 

Do  do  do  do  extra  10  50 

Do  Checks,  2  vols.,  8vo.,  sheep  4  00 
Do  Appeal  ISmo.  50 


GERMS    OF    THOUGHT,    in 

18mo  38 

HISTORY  OF  THE  ME  THO- 

DIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,— 

from  the  year  1700  to  the  year  1828, 
in  3  vols.  By  Rev.  Nathan  Bangs, 
D.  D.     12mo.  3  00 

HARMONIST;  being  a  collec- 
tion of  Tunes  from  the  most  approved 
authors  ;  adapted  to  every  variety  of 
metro  in  the  Methodist  Hymniiook  : 
together  with  a  selection  of  Anthems, 
&c.  &c.,  either  patent  or  round 
notes.*  half  bound  1    12 

do  full  bound  in  sheep  1  37 

do  calf  extra  2  12 

INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 
STUDY  OF  THE  BIBLE;  an 
Analysis  of"  An  Introduction  to  the 
Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures."  By  T.  H.  Home, 
12mo.  1  00 

JONES,  MRS.,  NARRATIVE 
OF,  WRECK  OF  MISSIONA- 
RIES, 8vo.  9 

JOSEPHUS'  WORKS,  1  vol. 
Bvo.  2  00 

LETTERS  ON  BAPTISM.  By 
Rev.  T.  Merritt.  9 

LECTURES  ON  UNIVERSAL 
SALVATION,  in  three  lectures 
and  five  answers  aj:iin»t  that  doc- 
trine. By  Rev.  T.  Merritt.  To 
which  are  added  two  discourses  on 
the  same  subject,  by  Rev.  Wilbur 
Fisk,  A.  M.  ISmo.  50 

LESLIE'S  METHOD  WITH 
DEISTS  :  wherein  the  truth  of  the 
Christian  Religion  is  demonstrated  : 
In  a  Letter  to  a  Friend  6 

MANNERS  AND  CUSTOMS 
OF  THE  ANCIENT  ISRAEL- 
ITES, &e.,  with  a  Short  Account 
of  the  .Ancient  and  Mo.lern  Samari- 
tans. Transbited  from  the  French 
of  Claude  Fleury,  by  Adam  Clarke, 
LL.  D.,  F.  A.  S.  50 

METHODIST    ALMANAC     6 

METHODIST  DISCIPLINE, 
sheep  25 

Do  do  calf  plain  37 

Do  do  roan  tucks  75 

Do  do  calf  extra  gilt  edges  1  00 

Do  do  morocco  1  12 

*  Pereona  onlering  will  please  spccily  wbiclikiiui 
they  u'aut 


CATALOGUE    OF    BOOKS. 


50 
63 

62 

75 

1  no 

1  00 
1  25 
1  50 
1   50 


METHODIST  HYMNS,  12mo : 

well  bound  in  sheep  1  25 

Plain  calf  1  50 

Call  fTllt  1  75 

Calf  extra  2  00 

do  ailt  edges  2  25 

Morocco  do  2  50 

With  the  Ritual  added,  for  the  use 
of  pulpits,  emiiracing  The  Articles 
of  Religion — Genera!  Rules  of  So- 
ciety—  Forms  of  Baptism — The 
Lord's.  Supper — Burial  of  the  Dead, 
and  Mairiinony.  25  cents  will  be 
added  to  the  above  prices. 

HYMNS,  24  and  48mos.  plain 
sheep 

Do  sheep  gilt 
Do  do  plain  calf 
Do  do  calf  gilt 
Do  do  calf  extra 
Do  do  ro;in  do 

Do  do  call  extra,  gilt  leaves 
Dodo  morocco  do 

Do  do  lio  do  with  tucks  _      _ 

Methodist   Hyiiiiis,  Pearl,  [smallest 

size.]  a  beaulif«l  edition, 
PlHin  slieep  SI 

Sheep  jrilt  37 

Plain  calf  38 

Calf  gilt  50 

Do  extra  75 

Roan  extra  75 

Calf  extra,  silt  leaves  87 

Morocco     do  1   00 

Do  do  with  tucks  1   00 

Do  in  sliccts---21mo.  and  48mo.,  fold- 
ed and  collated,  will  be  each,  with- 
out discount  20 
The  pearl  edition,  folded  and  colla- 
ted, will  be  each  15 
50  cents  (>cr  100  additional  if  roll- 
ed. 

HYMNS  24mo.,  and  DISCI- 
PI,!  NK  bound  together  Oli 
Do  do  in  calf  75 
Do  do  in  calf  extra                        1    12 

NKW  DIVINITY,  an  Examina- 
tion into  the  System  of.  By  Rev. 
Francis  Hodgson.     12nio.  1  00 

NKLSO.N'S  JOITR.VAL  37 

O  R  I  G  I  N  A  I,  CHI'IK^H  OF 
CHRIST;  or.  A  Scriptural  Vindi- 
cation of  the  Ord.ers  ami  Poners  of 
the  Ministry  of  the  Mtthodi.si  Fpis- 
copal  Church.  By  Nathan  Baii,'s, 
D.  D.     1  vol.  12ino.  1  00 


PARENTS'   FRIEND;  or  Let. 

ters  on  the  GoverniTient  and  Educa- 
tion of  Ciiildren  and  Youth.  By  Rev. 
Daniel  Smith.     iSaao.  37 

PORTRAIT  OF  ST.  PAITL,  or 
a  True  Model  for  Christians  and 
Pastors  :  Translated  from  the  French 
of  Rev.  John  Fletcher,  by  the  Rev. 
John  Gilpin.     8vo.  1  25 

PREACHERS'  MANUAL:  in- 
cludin:?  Clavis  Biblica,  and  A  Letter 
to  a  Methodist  Preacher,  by  Adam 
Clarke,  LL.  D  ,  F.  A.  S. :  al.s-o  Four 
Discourses  on  the  Duties  of  a  Minis- 
ter of  the  Gospel,  by  Thomas  Coke, 
LL.  D.     12ino.  75 

REFORMED  PASTOR  ;  show- 
ing  the  nature  of  the  Pastoral  VVork. 
By  R.  Baxter.  Abridged  by  T. 
Rutherford.     12mo.  75 

RELIGION  RFCOMMENDED 
TO  YOUTH,  in  a  Series  of  Letters 
addressed  to  a  Young  Lady.  To 
which  are  adfled,  Poems  on  Variou.s 
Occasions.  By  Caroline  .M.  Tli;iypr. 
32mo.  25 

RKMAINS  OF  .MF.LVILLE  B. 
COX,  late  .Mlssioiiarv  to  Liberia, 
with  a  Memoir.  By  Rev.  Gershom 
F.  Cox.  l8mo.  50 

RUTER'S  ECCLESIASTICAL 
HISTORY.  1  vol.  8vo  2  00 

Do  do  do  do  calf  2  23 

Do  do  do  do  do  gilt  2  .''•O 

Do  do  do  do  do  extra  2  75 

ROWE.  [Mrs]  DEVOUT  EX 
ERCISES  OFTHE  HKART    25 

SAINTS'  EVERLASTING 
REST  •  or,  A  Treatise  on  the  bless- 
ed state  of  the  Saints,  in  their  enjoy-  ■ 
menl  of  God  in  Glory.  Extrictcd 
from  Baxter's  Works,  by  Rev.  Jolin 
Wesley,  M.  A.  12riio.  76 

SERIOUS  CALL  TO  A  HOLY 
LIFK.  By  Mr.  Law.  Aljridjicd  by 
Rev    John  Wesley,  A.  M.  l8uio.    50 

SERMONS  :— Wesley's  2  vols, 
common  3  00 

do  fine  4  Oo 

do  calf  4  50 

rioc.ilfgilt  5  00 

do  calf  extra  5  50 


DATE  DUE 


'l«INT«OINO.«. 


